- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:31:22 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
- CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
I confess I'm a bit surprised to see that the section "Claiming mobileOK Conformance using POWDER" was entirely removed. My recollection of our discussion was that: 1. it is not mandatory to use a machine-readable claim to claim conformance to mobileOK 2. people may still use the machine-readable claim, and that's something we still want to promote as a good practice. In short, I think the document should just provide several ways to claim conformance to mobileOK: - the logo - POWDER [ - and possibly RDFa although I'm not sure that's such a good idea since there's no way to embed such a claim in a mobileOK representation, leading to a pretty confusing message "Use RDFa to claim you're mobileOK, but not in a mobileOK page. What ?!?". ] Did I miss something? Francois. Phil Archer wrote: > > Whilst I understand that this draft reflects the resolutions taken at > TPAC, I would like to propose an addition to the document that at least > points to the option to make the mobileOK claim machine-readable as > follows. > > 2. Further Steps > As the previous section makes clear, the mobileOK trustmark is an icon > that may be included on any Web page that conforms to mobileOK Basic > Tests. However, it is possible to go further and make the claim > machine-readable using any of a number of different methods, thus making > mobileOK content more readily discoverable. The Protocol for Web > Description Resources [@@POWDER] includes an example of how to do this > in its documentation and alternatives include RDFa and microformats (@@ > link to Jonathan’s work on this) > > Link to http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#evidence (this is due to be > updated w/c 10 November, see it now at > http://philarcher.org/powder/20081104.html#evidence > > WDYT? > > Phil. > > > > > Jo Rabin wrote: >> >> Hi folks, I have updated the Editor's draft of mobileOK scheme [1] in >> line with the resolutions taken at the F2F. I did not put anything in >> the document about sticking a date in the ALT test for the trustmark >> as I don't recall that actually being a resolution. And anyway, I >> don't understand what that is supposed to represent, how you'd encode >> it and why it would be useful, what effect it would have on the >> correct use of ALT and so on. >> >> I'd like to close out on this by the time mobileOK Basic Tests goes to >> Rec (early Dec). A couple of further things need sorting out on this: >> >> a) ACTION-869 - Review the mobileOK license in more details and send >> further questions to rigo [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-10-27] >> >> b) RESOLUTION: Dom, Jo and Rigo to form a subcommittee to come back >> with a final proposal to the group within 4 weeks following on from >> Rigo's current proposal. >> >> I'm attending to these now. Meanwhile would appreciate comments on the >> latest draft. >> >> thanks >> Jo >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20081106 >> >> >
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 09:32:03 UTC