Re: 1.4 delivery context

[Sorry for the duplicate]

  Dear Charles McCathieNevile ,

The Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Mobile Web Best
Practices 1.0 published on 13 January 2006 Thank you for having taken the
time to review the document and to send us comments!

This message holds the disposition of the said comments on which the
Working Group has agreed. This disposition has been implemented in the new
version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060412/

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 3 May 2006. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a
specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If
such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to
raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director
during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C
Recommendation Track.

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group,
Philipp Hoschka
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
W3C Staff Contacts

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/op.s4my39w4wxe0ny@widsith.local
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/


=====

Your comment on 1.4 Default Delivery Context:
3. Security



In order to build commercial services on the web, secure connections are 


necessary. In addition, these are widely implemented already. Is there no 


requirement to support https connections in the mobile space as a best  

practice?

Working Group Resolution:
We don't have any best practice regarding security, and deploying a secure
service on the Web and on mobile devices require much more guidance than
simple best practices. As a consequence, the group doesn't feel the
document should talk about HTTPS.

----

Your comment on 1.4 Default Delivery Context:
2. Colours:



There are a number of interpretations of "websafe" colours - please  

provide a reference that unambiguously states which colours are expected 


to be available.

Working Group Resolution:
We have added the definition that a Web safe color as one which has
Red/Green/Blue components chosen only from the values 0, 51, 102, 153,
204, and 255. 



----

Your comment on 1.4 Default Delivery Context:
4. HTTP



It is not clear that any transport protocol is guaranteed on the device. 


Given the requirements to support the regular web, and in particular such 


things as 30x HTTP responses, it would be appropriate to specify a level 


of HTTP support in the default characteristics. mobile space as a best  

practice?

Working Group Resolution:
We do say in 1.3 "From the perspective of this document this means that
services should be available as some variant of HTML over HTTP."  but
indeed HTTP wasn't part of the default delivery context.



We have added HTTP 1.0 as part of the default delivery context.



----

Your comment on 1.4 Default Delivery Context:
5. Style sheets



XHTML Basic does not include any support for internal styles. It makes  

sense, given the problems of latency that are a key constraint in the  

mobile space, to mandate support for internal styling, but it is not clear
 

 from the current wording what support can be expected (and therefore, as 


an implementor, what support we are implicitly being required to provide).

Working Group Resolution:
We have clarified the default delivery context, and now it only allows
external style sheet as required by XHTML Basic.

----

Your comment on 1.4 Default Delivery Context:
1. Meaning



The text does not make it clear whether the characteristics are minimum  

specifications, or actual specifications that should be assumed. For  

example should a developer assume in the absence of other information that
 

the width of a device is 120 px, or that there may be no more than 120 px 


width available.

Working Group Resolution:
We have qualified the screen width as being a minimum.

----

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:13:56 UTC