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

Re: New Draft MobileOK Scheme 1.0 2008-11-13

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:53:12 +0000
Message-ID: <491C1528.90805@mtld.mobi>
To: manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org
CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

 > Why not keeping the previous value (http://validator.w3.org/mobile/), 
and explain that supportedBy value could be any checker interface 
available, like the ones mentioned before (CTIC and .mobi ones)
 >

Because having specifically called out the W3C interface in the earlier 
section it seems fair to mention another checker elsewhere, especially 
since I'm an editor of the document and would like my company's products 
recognised too. Recall that the W3C Web interface is not endorsed by the 
BPWG (it's just the checker library that is).

It would be reasonable to add the note you mention for clarification, 
anyhow.

Jo

On 13/11/2008 11:48, Manrique Lopez wrote:
> El jue, 13-11-2008 a las 11:24 +0000, Jo Rabin escribió:
> 
>> Under 1.4 the document references the W3C Web interface but does not 
>> reference other Web interfaces. Notably CTIC's [1] and dotMobi's [2]
>>
>> [1] http://validadores.tawdis.net/mobileok/en/
>> [2] http://ready.mobi
>>
>> If CTIC wants a reference to its interface, please speak now.
>>
> 
> Yes, it would be right having a reference to our interface
> 
>> I changed the value of supportedBy in the example in 2.2.1 to refer to 
>> ready.mobi
>>
> 
> Why not keeping the previous value (http://validator.w3.org/mobile/), and explain that supportedBy value could be any checker interface available, like the ones mentioned before (CTIC and .mobi ones)
> 
> Thanks and best regards,
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 11:54:04 UTC

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