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

Re: New draft of mobileOK Scheme 2008-11-06

From: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:59:17 +0000
Message-ID: <49141F85.2000301@fosi.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Jo Rabin wrote:

> I anticipate some proposed text from the Member from Suffolk addressing 
> re-insertion of references to machine readable claims. 

See e-mail sent late last night: 

Both you and he
> are welcome to join the little task force.
> In this context I need to say that the organisation I represent has no 
> plans to use the logo under license - so I think I have now reached the 
> point where I need to understand
> a) what the use cases are, as I mentioned above
> b) that this is really going to get used in some way by content providers
> c) that some search engine somewhere is planning to look for machine 
> readable labels.

Here's what one rather large search engine told me on a recent visit to 
Silicon Valley: You create the data, make sure it's not full of spam, 
and we'll use it. But don't expect us to make a public statement on the 
issue to help you on your way.

In other words, if you want a search engine or two to make a statement 
about the usefulness of mobileOK, or any other machine-readable label, 
before you decide to use it, you'll never decide to use it. If, however, 
you really want search engines to have an easy way to identify 
mobile-friendly content, and if you want to encourage content providers 
along a route that ends up with more mobile friendly content that they 
can advertise as such, then you need to create the best platform 
possible for that to happen.

It seems to me that, given the feelings expressed around this issue and 
the fact that, for all our best efforts, POWDER is going to be at PR, 
not Rec, next month, that including some examples of what you MAY do to 
make mOK machine-readable in this doc is a pretty basic step that we can 
take without upsetting the apple cart too much or creating dependencies 
we could do without.


> I suggest that if we are to continue this work then We really need to 
> get to the bottom of this, with the idea that it all needs to be sorted 
> out by Dec 1 which is the end of review for mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 
> [MOK] (sic). Otherwise probably the simplest thing is to drop the idea 
> of a license and the logo till we are clearer on it, and publish the 
> scheme document just as a way of linking together Best Practices, 
> mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 and the Checker.
> Sorry if I seem to be a bit fed up with this topic. But I am.
> Jo
> On 07/11/2008 09:31, Francois Daoust wrote:
>> 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 Jonathanís 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 

Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 10:59:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:59 UTC