W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: BP2 Name Problem: Delivery context assumed not stated?

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:48:29 -0400
Message-ID: <e920a71c0804030948k32f7c70ai8169f9ef9c57ebe0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Being a broken record here, but this is also my understanding, and an
understanding that seems to underpin the document. This is why I am
not sure it was wise to decide that there is no ADC, because there is
in this doc, even if not called by name. I'll call it "iPhone-ish". We
can say we don't want to name and ADC, but then if we do in spirit
anyway, not admitting it is only a handicap.

Charles you rightly say, well, the DDC was a fallback profile for when
you don't know anything, and so had to be explicitly named. This doc
is about things you can do if you know the device to be more capable
somehow. And you rightly say, the important question is "how"? Since
the doc doesn't mention this and nobody seems to mind too much, I
suggest that it implies we all think the BPs are already assuming an
iPhone-ish device.

I don't think that's a problem, as it allows the document to be much
more clearly understood and scoped. It seems far more straightforward
to say "this doc is about iPhone-ish devices, and, among other things
you should do X and Y with Javascript" rather than write no-op
statements like "this doc is about a lot of things, and to the extent
it's about a device that can do X and Y in Javascript, you should do
those things, but if you don't think it can do those things, then
don't, and do something else we don't mention."

I claim this further suggests there are scoping issues that I'd prefer
to resolve before a first public draft. In particular I suggest
accepting Adam's edits, and mine, which call for removal of several
BPs.

Sean


On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Charles McCathieNevile
<chaals@opera.com> wrote:

> > The document doesn't (as far as I can see) actually say that it is
> > aimed at an advanced device. I remember hearing at some stage that it
> > wasn't practicable to define one. If it isn't, but has been assumed as
> > the basis for the document but not stated then something's gone wrong
> > somewhere. The document talks about web applications but doesn't say
> > much about the devices required.
> >
>
>  My understanding is that it is aimed at a device at least more advanced
> than DDC, but it works through taking advantage of specific device
> characteristics. So you either have to know how to identify that a device
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 16:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:51 UTC