- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:09:05 +0100
- To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Jo Rabin wrote: > > OK then the proposal is to remove 3 references to POWDER and to change > the abstract to say > I would change the line around 'Content which passes the tests has..." in this: > This document defines the tests that provide the basis for making a > claim of W3C® mobileOK Basic™ conformance and are based on W3C Mobile > Web Best Practices [Best Practices]. The details of how to claim > mobileOK conformance will be described separately. Content which passes > the tests has taken some steps to provide a functional user experience > for users of basic mobile devices whose capabilities at least match > those of the Default Delivery Context (DDC). To This document defines the tests that provide the basis for making a claim of W3C® mobileOK Basic™ conformance and are based on W3C Mobile Web Best Practices [Best Practices]. The details of how to claim mobileOK conformance will be described separately. *Authors of* content which passes the tests *have* taken some steps to provide a functional user experience for users of basic mobile devices whose capabilities at least match those of the Default Delivery Context (DDC). The rest is fine I'd say (not that there's much weight there, by any application of the rules I shouldn't be seen as in Good Standing in BPWG these days) Naturally, I would have liked POWDER to be mentioned in the document directly but the time scales don't match and so its removal is sensible. As long as the scheme document mentions it, I'm happy. POWDER is now, at last, at a stage where the mobileOK scheme document is something that I can spend some time on on and make a contribution towards. We're looking seriously at implementations and how our theories work in the real world (Last Call imminent). Cheers Phil. > > mobileOK Basic primarily assesses basic usability, efficiency and > interoperability. It does not address the important goal of assessing > whether users of more advanced devices enjoy a richer user experience > than is possible using the DDC. > > > and change the intro to say > > mobileOK Basic is a scheme for assessing whether Web resources (Web > content) can be delivered in a manner that is conformant with Mobile Web > Best Practices [Best Practices] to a simple and largely hypothetical > mobile user agent, the Default Delivery Context. > > This document describes W3C mobileOK Basic tests for delivered content, > and describes how to emulate the DDC when requesting that content. > > The intention of mobileOK is to help catalyze development of Web content > that provides a functional user experience in a mobile context. It is > not a test for browsers, user agents or mobile devices, and is not > intended to imply anything about the way these should behave. > > mobileOK does not imply endorsement or suitability of content. For > example, it must not be assumed that a claim that a resource is mobileOK > conformant implies that it is of higher informational value, is more > reliable, more trustworthy or is more appropriate for children than any > other resource. > > speak now ... > > Jo > > > > On 07/07/2008 12:21, Francois Daoust wrote: >> 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 12:10:01 UTC