Re: [MWBP 1.0] i18n comment: Mention standard messages in a mobile device

[Sorry for the duplicate]

  Dear <fsasaki@w3.org>,

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/20060222165348.79B84439D@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/


=====

Your comment on 5.4.13.2 How to do it:


Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/

Comment 17
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0602-mwbp10/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: FS
Location in reviewed document:
Sec. 5.4.13.2
[http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/#iddiv4102654416]

Comment:
 
\"Please consider proposing that it would help bandwidth to store standard
messages in the device itself, rather than download them each time.\"


Working Group Resolution:
Recommending that HTTP errors be handled by the device itself would go
contrary to the web architecture (e.g. preventing the content provider to
give detailed information to the user as to what the error is and what may
have caused it).

----

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 17:13:58 UTC