Re: comments: Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 - Scope

 Dear Karl Dubost ,

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 12 Apr 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-20060518/

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 30 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/46BFC1D4-A5EA-46E3-907F-22C67F4E29B7@w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060412/


=====

Your comment on 1.4 Scope:


Hi,
This is a QA Review comment for "Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060412/
Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:18:21 GMT
Last Call WD


* Why the document scope has a direct reference only and not a link  
in the reference section?
* I haven't figured out if it was troublesome to have the scope of a  
specification in a W3C Note. It seems strange. At the same time, you  
are making an abstract of it.

[[[
The scope of these Best Practices is laid out in "Scope of Mobile Web  
Best Practices" [Scope]. In summary, this document refers primarily  
to the extension of Web browsing onto mobile devices.
]]]


Working Group Resolution:
The scope document does appear to be properly linked from the References -
can you clarify if that is not what you mean?

----

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 16:02:16 UTC