Re: Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

 Dear Ben Cerbera Millard ,

The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the W3C mobileOK Basic
Tests 1.0 (2nd Last Call) published on 25 May 2007. Thank you for having
taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070928/.

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 19 October 2007. 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 Practices Working Group,
Michael(tm) Smith
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/001101c7ac59$17229e40$0201a8c0@ben9xr3up2lv7v
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/


=====

Your comment on the document as a whole:
> > The draft is premised on a vision about mobile browsing that assumes
> > special mobile content. Instead of implying a separate Mobile Web, I
> > think the W3C should push for one World Wide Web with mobile
> browsers
> > that can access general Web content.
> > [...]
> > The premise of mobileOK seems to be that you take the non-Web-ready 
> thin
> > browser and expect origin servers out there take special steps  to
> > accommodate it.
> 
> This is a fundamental criticism I have of the mobileOK guidelines.
> Mobile
> phone networks here in the UK have been promoting their "access the
> whole
> Web on your phone" capabilities for years. They can even do scripting
> [1].
> 
> Because so much web content is text/html, surely it is more useful to
> work
> on improving support for that in UAs? Mainstream mobile UAs already
> have
> better support for HTML than XHTML, many having no support at all for
> XHTML
> [2]. I can browse the text/html Web fine on my mobile phone in the
> here-and-now.
> 
> PDF and Word documents are also more common than XML formats on the
> web, in
> my experience. Improving support for them would surely be the next
> logical
> priority after HTML?
> 
> Advising against W3C technologies such as HTML and PNG seems like a
> strange
> move for a W3C Working Group to take. Especially since these
> technologies
> are already implemented widely.


Working Group Resolution:
Our understanding and experience is that XHTML Basic delivered with the
content type application/xhtml+xml succeeds in the largest number of
cases. Our objective is not to specify improvements to mobile devices,
though we hope that happens, it is to help content providers achieve a
functional user expeirences on the widest range of mobile devices. We
encourage content providers to work towards a harmonised experience on
devices that have more advanced capabilties.

----

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 03:13:11 UTC