Re: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zq (draft 43) - preview of PR draft

I'd suggest that there are at least 2 ways of claiming conformance to 
mobileOK and probably more. POWDER is one of course, but you can also do 
it in RDFa [1], now in CR. This might conflict with the XHTML Basic 
requirement but you can do this:

<html
    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
    xmlns:mok="http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#"
    <head typeof="mok:Basic">
      <title>My Mobile Content</title>
    </head>

This method and POWDER both refer to the RDF vocabulary where mobileOK 
is defined - and that can be published more or less straight away (the 
RDF spec is over 9 years old). A couple of very minor aspects of the 
mail I sent to this list on 25 June [2] are being discussed within the 
POWDER WG today and I expect to send a slightly revised version of that 
mail to this list in about 24 hours' time (basically I think we'll do 
away with the conformance property).

POWDER offers the attribution (who says this is mobileOK and how do I 
check they really said it?) and the way to say 'all these 3 million 
things are mobileOK' in a couple of kilobytes but there are and will be 
ever more ways of applying the un-attributed, un-tested statement that 
_this_ is mobileOK, or, as we say in SW land

<> rdf:typeOf <http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#Basic>

Due to a happy set of circumstances, the POWDER WG and several MWBP folk 
will be in the same place at the same time next week and I'm hoping 
we'll be able to make progress on sorting out what we need to do to get 
the scheme document written and published and who's going to do what for 
it. It really should be that much work for any of us.

Even so, for the sake of not holding up the Basic Test doc any more, 
Francois' suggested text looks eminently sensible to me.

Phil.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0063.html

Francois Daoust wrote:
> 
> Thanks a lot Jo.
> 
> I was willing to raise these before you issued yet another draft, but 
> you're faster than I am...
> 
> One new (small, and not on a test!) comment, and a clarification to an 
> existing one:
> 
> - In the Abstract and Introduction sections:
> "Claims to be W3C mobileOK conformant are represented using Description 
> Resources (see [POWDER]), described separately"
> 
> I failed to notice that before, and only reluctantly raise this comment, 
> but... given that we're targeting the "Proposed Recommendation" phase 
> and that there should not be any link to specifications that are not yet 
> Recommendations at that stage, I wonder about the possibility to have 
> such an explicit reference to POWDER at this point, and if we should not 
> rather use a more generic statement such as the one that is in "1.3 
> Claiming mobileOK conformance":
> "The details of the mechanism for claiming mobileOK conformance will be 
> described separately".
> 
> 
> - 2.4.3 HTTP Response
> "If the HTTP status represents failure (4xx), other than 404, a request 
> for authentication (e.g. 401) or a 406 when carrying out the 3.15.1 
> Object Element Processing Rule, FAIL"
> 
> I thought that from your reply at the end of:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0001.html 
> 
> ... we had agreed that:
>   a/ it is indeed permissible to FAIL on a Linked Resource.
>   b/ the 406 exception-to-the-rule would apply to Linked Resources as well.
> 
> I'm raising b/ again as, although we're not actively promoting the use 
> of 406 responses in the Content Transformation Guidelines, we're still 
> saying it's a good practice, and a FAIL here means that a mobileOK page 
> cannot link to a page that, while not being mobileOK, at least makes 
> sure that the end user won't download MBs of incompatible content.
> 
> It makes all the more sense IMO than we only warn when a linked resource 
> returns a 404.
> 
> I do not think this would constitute a significant change, but rather a 
> clarification of intent on Linked Resources. I'm not defending the idea 
> to the point of starting a new hundread year war, but did you skip that 
> change on purpose?
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
> Jo Rabin wrote:
>>
>> Further to the exchange on STYLE_SHEETS_USE on the Comments and 
>> Checker lists please find another draft at:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/080707 
>>
>>
>> and a diff to the LC-4 Editor's draft at (sorry, TinyURL not working 
>> today)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080606&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080707 
>>
>>
>> and a diff to draft 1zp at
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080704&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080707 
>>
>>
>> I very much hope that this is the last draft so we can agree to 
>> proceed on Thursday's call.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>>
>> On 04/07/2008 14:06, Jo Rabin wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks again to Rotan for picking up my mistake on the formatting of 
>>> the  Object Element Processing Rule, annoying, especially since I had 
>>> asked you all to look at it very carefully. Sigh. Festina Lente.
>>>
>>> So I have spent this morning chastising myself, and (perhaps more 
>>> usefully) tightening up on the notion of Included Resources and which 
>>> tests apply to them. This has meant some reasonably substantial (but 
>>> not substantive) changes. I've also changed the wording of the Object 
>>> Processing Rule once again to try to clarify it. In addition there is 
>>> some tidying up of grammatical agreement, capitalization and so on.
>>>
>>> I hesitate to say this, in view of yesterday's debacle, but please 
>>> check this all out carefully. It is very difficult to review one's 
>>> own text and not read into it what one meant to say, irrespective of 
>>> what it actually says.
>>>
>>> You will find the latest offering at
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/080704 
>>>
>>>
>>> the diff to the LC-4 Editors draft at
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5jgu2q
>>>
>>> and the diff to yesterday's offering at
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5q5lpg
>>>
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2008 00:54, Jo Rabin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear. Thanks Rotan, and I have spotted some other bugs. The 
>>>> fateful draft 42 to come tomorrow ... when I have thought about it a 
>>>> bit more.
>>>>
>>>> On 03/07/2008 19:04, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
>>>>> I have looked at the object element processing rule at [1] and I 
>>>>> believe
>>>>> I can follow what is intended, but unfortunately the indenting (which
>>>>> represents the scope of operations in some cases) seems a little 
>>>>> broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---Rotan
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/08 
>>>>>
>>>>> 0703#ObjectElementProcessingRule
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org 
>>>>> [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Jo Rabin
>>>>> Sent: 03 July 2008 17:44
>>>>> To: MWI BPWG Public
>>>>> Subject: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zo (draft 41) - preview of PR
>>>>> draft
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've posted a new version of mobileOK Basic Tests at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/08 
>>>>>
>>>>> 0703
>>>>>
>>>>> Differences from LC-4 Editors Draft: http://tinyurl.com/5bly2q
>>>>>
>>>>> I intend to make some further minor tweaks to correct punctuation 
>>>>> and some wording but they can wait. Please review this draft and in 
>>>>> particular give your consideration to the Object Processing Rule 
>>>>> which has been such a headache.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I think
>>>>> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove Appendix C
>>>>> as it is now superfluous.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> Jo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [principal changes]
>>>>>
>>>>> Corrections as noted by Francois when posting previous draft into TR
>>>>> space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Removal of reference to mobileOK Pro in Appendix C
>>>>>
>>>>> Removal of reference to mobileOK Pro in section 1 and renaming of
>>>>> section 1.1 and 1.1.1
>>>>>
>>>>> Corrections to Object Processing and HTTP Response as noted by Dom 
>>>>> and Francois and as noted by me on the public-bpwg-comment list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes to clarify the difference between type attribute, Internet 
>>>>> Media
>>>>>
>>>>> Type and Presentation Media Type.
>>>>>

Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 10:50:56 UTC