W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > July 2008

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

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:21:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4871FC2A.4020302@w3.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Jo Rabin wrote:
>  > to the point of starting a new hundread year war, but did you skip that
>  > change on purpose?
> 
> Get your crossbow ready:

So much violence, tsss ;-)

> 
> 1) According to my understanding and recollection of the call on 
> Thursday, the consensus went with Kai in saying that if a resource was 
> linked from a mobileOK document then the linked document should not 
> return a 406, though there is no requirement on it to be mobileOK.

OK, I'm fine with that.


> 
> 2) Ref POWDER, in the following
> 
> Claims to be W3C mobileOK conformant are represented using Description 
> Resources (see [POWDER]), described separately
> 
> for the sake of consistency with 1.3 you'd like it changed to
> 
> Claims to be W3C mobileOK conformant will be represented using 
> Description Resources (see [POWDER]), described separately
> 
> Is that the idea?

Not exactly. The problem lies in mentioning POWDER. Using a future tense 
or oven a conditional tense does not completely solve the problem. I 
have to check this in details with some W3C Process specialist, but at 
Proposed Recommendation (and Recommendation), the only visible 
specifications are the ones that are Recommendations as well (with the 
very recent possibility to mention RDFa, but that's another story), and 
we cannot say that POWDER is going to become a Recommendation at that 
point, even though that's very very likely, and even though we really 
really want to use it... (well, we may end up with RDFa as Phil pointed out)

What I suggest is to completely remove the mention of POWDER from this 
document, not to introduce any dependency here. The mobileOK Scheme 
document will be dependent on POWDER, but mobileOK Basic Tests does not 
have to be. Final text in all three places could be:
"The details of the mechanism for claiming mobileOK conformance will be 
described separately."

Francois, who deeply apologizes for willing to eradicate POWDER from all 
our documents... not my fault!
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 11:21:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC