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

RE: ACTION-593 Write a summary of preliminary work to be done for this working group to focus on Best Practices for Web applications

From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:31:48 -0800
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD05D9402E@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "BPWG-Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi Kai,
The target device types for BP2 should be those which need our attention
to recommendations related to specific constraints. If that's understood
through the device properties e.g. exposed in a DDR, I guess that's one
way that a device "says what it is". Given the BP charter to work only
with existing technology/practices, I don't see a good way for the
device to "say what it is" directly (other than user-agent masquerading,
which would be saying "what I want you to think I am"), if that's what
you meant.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich [mailto:k.scheppe@telekom.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:00 AM
To: Sullivan, Bryan; Jo Rabin; BPWG-Public
Subject: RE: ACTION-593 Write a summary of preliminary work to be done
for this working group to focus on Best Practices for Web applications

Hi Bryan,

For clarification,
"determine which type of device we are writing the BP 2.0 document for
(what are our expections in its capabilities?)"
was in reference to the ADC.

Also, as a side note, there is a lingering question as to what /*is*/ a
mobile device.
While most would agree that a laptop is not and a PDA is, I think we
left off at saying that the device should say what it is, which in turn
might be influenced by user choice.

-- Kai

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sullivan, Bryan
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 10:25 PM
> To: Jo Rabin; BPWG-Public
> Subject: RE: ACTION-593 Write a summary of preliminary work to be done

> for this working group to focus on Best Practices for Web applications
> 
> 
> Thanks, Jo.
> 
> Here is my input.
> 
> Re "determine what if and what of BP 1.0 needs to be reexamined or 
> built upon for a generic BP 2.0 document.  I.e.
> are there gaps left in 1.0 that need closing and will this help us to 
> further improve the creation of mobile suitable
> content.": I started that by the text in the requirements section. 
> Other aspects that need to be carried forward and improved upon are 
> welcome.
> 
> Re "are there any techniques or guidelines to be offered which
> belong(ed) more in the realm of mobileOK Pro, which should be 
> addressed now? Meaning can we, because we are now dealing with more 
> sophisticated devices, issue new and better BPs?":
> Some of these (e.g. use of cookies and redirect) have been proposed in

> the requirements. I welcome other aspects as well.
> 
> Re "determine which type of device we are writing the BP 2.0 document 
> for (what are our expections in its capabilities?)":
> my take is that we are still talking about mobile devices, mostly at 
> their core intended as mobile phones, with significant constraints on 
> input/output and resources in general. I would cut the line at the 
> "micro-PC" (as beyond the scope), e.g. those devices which are 
> intended to be micro-sized versions of full desktop/laptop PC's.
> 
> Re "determine the scope of BP 2.0.  Where do we not want to
> go?": There is some of this in the current draft, but more is welcome.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 11:43 AM
> To: BPWG-Public
> Subject: FW: ACTION-593 Write a summary of preliminary work to be done

> for this working group to focus on Best Practices for Web applications
> 
> 
> At risk of stoking a fire that already seems to be burning nicely, I 
> am forwarding this under Bryan's ACTION-660 for the benefit of 
> Trackbot.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich
> Sent: 15 February 2008 11:33
> To: BPWG-Public
> Subject: FW: ACTION-593 Write a summary of preliminary work to be done

> for this working group to focus on Best Practices for Web applications
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, despite that fact that we had closed this action,

> I did find the text which may still have some pertinence.
> 
> -- Kai
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:50 PM
> > To: BPWG
> > Subject: ACTION-593 Write a summary of preliminary work to
> be done for
> 
> > this working group to focus on Best Practices for Web applications
> > 
> > ACTION-593 Write a summary of preliminary work to be done for this 
> > working group to focus on Best Practices for Web applications
> > 
> > For the work done in BPWG under Charter 2 and for BP 2.0 we have 
> > determined that the next document will be in the focus of web 
> > applications.
> > 
> > While it is implicit that some ground work has to be done to allow 
> > work on web applications to progress, we determined to
> explicitly put
> > down some of this ground work through this action:
> > 
> > 
> > Things to take care of prior to engaging in web
> applications related
> > work, in no particular order:
> > 
> > - determine what if and what of BP 1.0 needs to be
> reexamined or built
> 
> > upon for a generic BP 2.0 document.  I.e. are there gaps
> left in 1.0
> > that need closing and will this help us to further improve the 
> > creation of mobile suitable content.
> > 
> > - are there any techniques or guidelines to be offered which
> > belong(ed) more in the realm of mobileOK Pro, which should be 
> > addressed now? Meaning can we, because we are now dealing with more 
> > sophisticated devices, issue new and better BPs?
> > 
> > - determine which type of device we are writing the BP 2.0 document 
> > for (what are our expections in its capabilities?)
> > 
> > - determine the scope of BP 2.0.  Where do we not want to go?
> > 
> > - formulate specific goals that we wish to achieve with
> producing this
> 
> > document?
> > 
> > - formulate our expectations as to what should change in
> public usage
> > of mobile content once we publish this document.
> > 
> > 
> > -- Kai
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 08:32:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:55 UTC