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

ISSUE-287 (adam): Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in MWABP [Mobile Web Applications Best Practices]

From: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:32:00 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20090126103200.90AF1BF50@nelson.w3.org>

ISSUE-287 (adam): Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 in MWABP [Mobile Web Applications Best Practices]

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/287

Raised by: Adam Connors
On product: Mobile Web Applications Best Practices

Please see Jo's commented revision of MWABP here:
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20090101

Any comments / input on any of the outstanding comments is welcome. But I am going to raise a number of issues over the coming sessions to focus discussion. This is the first one.

Changes to 3.1.1 Retain information for Personalization & 3.1.2 Automatically Identify User. Jo's comments are below. My proposed response is that we should merge these two BPs which really say much the same thing. I would also appreciate some discussion on what the intent of the recommendation is.

Please read 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 and come to the call on 27th armed with opinions.

More details below...

Jo's comments: 
==============

a) 3.1.1 JavaScript variables as a means to persistent storage needs more explanation.

b) 3.1.1 Server Based Data Store - overstated.

c) 3.1.2 is very closely related to 3.1.1. Re-write / Re-think.

d) 3.1.2 Identity Management Provider => like what? Need to spell out "trusted".

e) 3.1.2 Needs clarification

My responses:
=============

a) JavaScript variables for storage is non-obvious and a really bad idea. I've never come across it done in practice. It's like making up bad-practices so we can warn against them. "CAREFUL! DON'T PUT YOUR HAND IN A BLENDER!" &c... I propose removing this bullet.

b) Yes, possibly a little. Though I think the gist holds. Depending on how much you care about 3.5.10 (and most people don't) you probably have little choice except to do personalization on the server. I propose softening the wording: suggest / recommended / etc.

c) Enthusiastic agreement. Propose merging 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. Another conversation to nail down intent of this BP and come up with a succinct / single recommendation is required.

d) I don't know the answer to this. Perhaps Bryan or someone else can offer advice.

e) Propose we discuss in the call what single / clear recommendation can replace 3.1.1 and 3.1.2  
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 14:56:02 UTC

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