- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:04:11 -0400
- To: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
- Cc: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de> wrote: > I believe, if we keep going as we have been, we will create a set of > useful guidelines to exploit single capabilities of devices. Yes. > > How much of this somebody implements is up to them. The document will > be useful, but will not change much in the Web. > It will be limited to a few content providers who have CT at their > disposal. I basically agree, but state it differently: I don't think it's impossible to write tests for a batch of conditional best practices ("if devices supports A, then do B, otherwise do C"). But I do think it's hard because then we must, for each "A", define how to detect "A", and I do not see much if any writing on that yet, which makes me suspicious about whether it will appear, especially for some capabilities which I don't know how to detect. Then we have to write tests for "A supported" and "A not supported". And you can't pass unless you are explicitly handling both cases; it's not enough to ignore whether A is supported. And if all of your "A"s add up to a pretty clear profile, I wonder out loud whether it isn't worth saying what it is you're implicitly defining in the first place. People keep saying "don't make this a design-for-iPhone doc!" While brand names should of course be left out, if this is basically what we're doing, it would be far more useful to make this clear. I do feel we're taking pains to make this hard to grok to the developer community. BP1 quite elegantly said, given a certain fictional but realistic and easily understood profile, what should and shouldn't you do? BP2 could and should quite naturally be about a different and more timely profile. Trust me, people will try to understand BP2 as "BP1, but for a more capable profile" because that is the most manifestly natural thing to think about it. I appreciate the arguments about writing less-specific things, but, sometimes more specific is better; I think this is a lot of work and thinking going towards making this document hard to understand to a lot of people. Sean
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 11:05:03 UTC