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
Jo's comments
My response

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

> 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.


> 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.


> 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

> 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?

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