W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: [ACTION-908] good practice for login forms

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:20:17 +0100
Message-ID: <498A0691.1050800@w3.org>
To: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
CC: public-bpwg@w3.org

Luca Passani wrote:
> 
> Francois Daoust wrote:
>>
>> Sure, but we're not talking about a BP for the Mobile Web Best 
>> Practices (MWBP) recommendation here. We're talking about a BP for the 
>> Mobile Web Application Best Practices (MWABP) draft.
>>
>> There is no DDC in MWABP. See section 1.3.4:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20090101#d1e256 
>>
>>
>> The goal of these additional best practices is to exploit devices 
>> capabilities when you know about them. For instance, many of the best 
>> practices only apply when the mobile device has support for scripting, 
>> and thus do not target DDC-like devices.
> 
> I see. Apologies for the confusion.
> 
> So does MWABP rejects the concept of a DDC and fully embraces the idea 
> that multi-serving is necessary?

Isn't multi-serving behind the [CAPABILITIES] best practice?
  http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#CAPABILITIES
MWABP is built around this best practice.

I don't understand why we would need to reject the concept of a DDC. 
Multi-serving is recommended to improve the user experience on specific 
classes of devices. The DDC is for the default experience.

I would not use the term "necessary", but "recommended", sure!


> 
> if no, where is the MWABP DDC defined?
> 
> if yes, some of the practices listed may no longer be good practices in 
> case of multiserving.

Could you point them out?


> 
> Also, the spec seems to be sort of inconsistent with the CT stuff (a 
> transcoder may wreck havoc in the Json, CSS, scripting, XHR() that go 
> from the HTTP server to the client).

There is an active discussion to have transcoders respect mobile content 
explicitly flagged as such. I'm much in favor of it. "The best practices 
need to be protected" is indeed the main argument in my view.

Francois.

> 
> Thank you
> 
> Luca
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 21:20:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:00 UTC