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

RE: ACTION-660: Input to BP2, Scope and Criteria

From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:50:56 -0800
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD05D93FF0@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "BPWG-Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Sean,
Mobile browsers are already pushing hard on the expectation that any
internet web site is accessible (I don't have to name browser names).
Its all over the media. It's actually been a near-reality (limited) for
several years in some browsers.

I agree, that forward looking is nice, but what it essential today is
essential. I would not expect us to reference any draft or even hot off
the press technology (but we can negotiate on that based upon the
"hotness" of the technology).

Re "anything that's not (X)HTML over HTTP is probably well out of
scope": I don't think we want to be so limited. Web applications can be
expressed in a variety of languages/schemas for which the basic issues
of mobile use are the same. Syndication applications (e.g. ATOM/RSS
readers and content upload applications) are an example of a web
application that does not use XTHML (or at least have to).

Re "I thought we were still talking about Traditional Web Browsing from
mobile devices, for example": The "beyond" statement is there to
specifically make it clear, that we are not limiting BP2 to advanced web
browsers, though that may be the core focus.

Re sharpening the "common delivery contexts" and "mobile application
market" statements, I can agree. These will be developed as we get to
the specific recommendations, but can be expanded on in the "Constraints
and Capabilities of the Mobile Context" section. The intent was not to
limit at this point, but to promote examples based upon priorities. You
have expressed yours ((X)HTML web browsers), and I have others (phonetop
widgets operating outside the browser sandbox). This will come out as we
back up the statement "The focus of the BP2 document is on producing
Best Practices that apply to the browser sandbox, while recognising that
they may have broader applicability to the Web Runtime (CSS, HTML,
Javascript, DOM, Persistent Storage, additional libraries, no browser
chrome, cache, etc.), esp Mobile Widgets". What applies to the browser
sandbox, if it can be reasonably applied outside the browser sandbox,
will benefit from consideration of similar requirements outside that
sandbox. 

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:23 PM
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: BPWG-Public
Subject: Re: ACTION-660: Input to BP2, Scope and Criteria

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com> wrote:
>  BP2 extends the focus to Web applications generally, which means an  
> application that is accessed and presented via Web technologies. Web  
> applications represent a spectrum of services and content, at the 
> simple  end of which are typical Web browsing sites, presented in 
> browsers,  which were the focus of BP1. The BP2 focus includes further

> recommendations for addressing delivery context issues and for use of

> advanced Web technologies, which apply both to browsers and 
> non-browser  web runtime environments.

[srowen] Maybe I am being cranky here but this says the scope is full
(desktop?) web sites, and beyond, which seems far too broad for the
Mobile Web Initiative.

Do we mean we are talking about something besides (X)HTML? I heard talk
of S60s and Widgets.

One principle I'd like to establish is that this document is not
forward-looking, really, but rather a summary of what people are really
doing in the trenches today to make existing technologies work on
existing devices. I'd like to agree on -- or debate that -- first.

If we agree, then anything that's not (X)HTML over HTTP is probably well
out of scope. And if we agree there then we can sharpen this text. I
would write something like this...

"BP2 addresses best practices for delivering content to mobile devices
that are minimally capable of accessing Web content that was not
specifically designed for mobile devices, and what steps authors may
take to ensure that this Web content is still accessible and useful on
such devices."

>  1.4.1 Phasing
>  As discussed in the Scope document [Scope] there are many aspects to

> Mobile Web Best Practices. BP2 represents the second phase of the Best

> Practices development, i.e. beyond "Traditional Web Browsing".

[srowen] This I think has to be clarified to be sure we are all taking
about the same thing. I thought we were still talking about Traditional
Web Browsing from mobile devices, for example.

>  The BP2 is not intended as a landscape document, e.g. a general 
> survey  of technologies and related issues in the mobile context.
>  Recommendations are included here if they meet specific criteria:
>
>  - are considered essential for successful deployment of web 
> applications  in common delivery contexts
>  - are considered of fundamental importance to growth in the mobile 
> web  application market
>  - can be readily verified through compliance testing, either 
> automated
>  (preferred) or manual

[srowen] Same thing, just want to sharpen this. This doesn't yet give me
an understanding of what specifically we are talking about, when we say
common delivery contexts, mobile application market.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 22:51:56 UTC

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