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

Followup: ACTION-541: Summarize Jo's comment and my document and place into a W3C template

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:42:45 +0100
Message-ID: <398533C370C23441981074C456AA3BDD031DAF17@QEO00226.de.t-online.corp>
To: "BPWG-Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

I was asked to repost, what I had posted for ACTION-541.
Unfortunately it was fitted with the original Action number and so was
not associated to Action 541
Also, it was not placed into a template, as discussion stopped.
Basically the thread died.

 
Original action:
ACTION-532: to draft mobileOK usage rules and come back to the group

to be found
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Aug/0000.html
 
Jo's comments
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Aug/0060.html
 
 
My response
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Aug/0065.html
 

Here is the full text of my response, for the benefit of easy reading...
 
Hi Jo,

I think most of what you had written is actually contained in what I
propose.

> 1. Content that claims mobileOK at either level MUST indicate 
> that claim using the labelling mechanism that is to be 
> specified by the POWDER WG and which is to be elaborated by 
> the BPWG in a separate Recommendation.

Check

> 
> 2. The mobileOK logo is an optional additional human 
> perceivable visual notification that a claim is made in 
> respect of a given URI or group of URIs and that when the URI 
> is dereferenced using a suitable User Agent HTTP header, 
> content labelled using the mechanism identified in 1. will result.

Check

> 
> 3. Content in respect of which a mobileOK claim is made 
> SHOULD NOT include the mobileOK logo - as the logo is usually 
> extraneous to the purpose of the content and adds to the page 
> weight and latency of access to the content from mobile devices.
> 
> (But how about decorating links to mobileOK content with a 
> teeny mobileOK logo or some other sign)

I am not sure if this is feasible, as it devalues the notification that
could be given if a single page is found via search engines.
This will be a very important point to content authors and providers, as
it advertises the nature of mobileOK content.
Furthermore this mechanism will help spread the knowledge of mobileOK
content.

> 
> 4. Content from a URI from which a claim is made, when 
> accessed using a User Agent HTTP header other than one 
> identified in 2. MAY include a mobileOK logo as a sign that, 
> when accessed using appropriate (different) HTTP User Agent 
> Headers mobileOK content will result.

This is a bit convoluted and I am not sure how this would not be in
conflict with your 3., which in turn makes me support 4. :-)


> 
> 5. The mobileOK logo MAY be used to decorate URIs in printed 
> material and other visual media.

I have not listed this.

> 
> 6. These usage rules do not apply to meta discussion of the 
> mobileOK logo, as long as it is clear that the logo is not be 
> used as a notification of the presence of a claim.

Which meta discussion are you referring to?


Kai
Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 11:43:00 UTC

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