RE: [AP880] Review LC-2053 and clarify to group

> I am unsure about whether it is possible or recommended to rely upon terminology from another document whose status is not final, and therefore where term definitions might still change. François and Jo have the experience about W3C processes to clear up that issue, I believe.

The DDR Simple API has (as far as I know from W3C staff) transitioned to W3C Recommendation, and they are busy preparing a formal announcement.

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Casais [mailto:casays@yahoo.com] 
Sent: 13 November 2008 16:10
To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
Cc: Rotan Hanrahan; jrabin@mtld.mobi
Subject: Re: [AP880] Review LC-2053 and clarify to group

> The text "best possible user experience" is
> in the spotlight anyway, for being fluffy
> and un-testable.
>
> It's best practice no 2, you know.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#lcd

This is another issue we will discuss anyway. I tend towards putting these untestable, non-normative statements in the appendix and refer to the best practice document (it exists, so why not use it more?)

The remark about well-formedness does not apply to the introductory paragraph of 4.2.8.1 anyway, but to list point nr. 2 after
"If a proxy alters the response then..." in the current version of the draft.

> Saying that where a target markup type 
> has a requirement to be well-formed, the
> markup generated by the proxy MUST also be 
> well-formed, seems like good advice.

This looks ok. If there is a requirement of well-formedness for the target format, then the transformation must fulfil it.

> To be consistent with the work of the DDWG, > I would rephrase the conclusions of the two
> cases to say: "the transcoder must inspect
> evidence from the HTTP request (mainly the
> user-agent id of the requesting client) so
> as to take the appropriate decision not to
> transform."

I am all in favour of using well-defined, standard terminology; if it enables harmonization with other documents, all the better. 

I am unsure about whether it is possible or recommended to rely upon terminology from another document whose status is not final, and therefore where term definitions might still change. François and Jo have the experience about W3C processes to clear up that issue, I believe.

E.Casais

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 16:12:30 UTC