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

Re: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zq (draft 43) - preview of PR draft

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:17:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4871ED39.9040102@w3.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Thanks a lot Jo.

I was willing to raise these before you issued yet another draft, but 
you're faster than I am...

One new (small, and not on a test!) comment, and a clarification to an 
existing one:

- In the Abstract and Introduction sections:
"Claims to be W3C mobileOK conformant are represented using Description 
Resources (see [POWDER]), described separately"

I failed to notice that before, and only reluctantly raise this comment, 
but... given that we're targeting the "Proposed Recommendation" phase 
and that there should not be any link to specifications that are not yet 
Recommendations at that stage, I wonder about the possibility to have 
such an explicit reference to POWDER at this point, and if we should not 
rather use a more generic statement such as the one that is in "1.3 
Claiming mobileOK conformance":
"The details of the mechanism for claiming mobileOK conformance will be 
described separately".


- 2.4.3 HTTP Response
"If the HTTP status represents failure (4xx), other than 404, a request 
for authentication (e.g. 401) or a 406 when carrying out the 3.15.1 
Object Element Processing Rule, FAIL"

I thought that from your reply at the end of:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0001.html
... we had agreed that:
   a/ it is indeed permissible to FAIL on a Linked Resource.
   b/ the 406 exception-to-the-rule would apply to Linked Resources as well.

I'm raising b/ again as, although we're not actively promoting the use 
of 406 responses in the Content Transformation Guidelines, we're still 
saying it's a good practice, and a FAIL here means that a mobileOK page 
cannot link to a page that, while not being mobileOK, at least makes 
sure that the end user won't download MBs of incompatible content.

It makes all the more sense IMO than we only warn when a linked resource 
returns a 404.

I do not think this would constitute a significant change, but rather a 
clarification of intent on Linked Resources. I'm not defending the idea 
to the point of starting a new hundread year war, but did you skip that 
change on purpose?

Francois.


Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
> Further to the exchange on STYLE_SHEETS_USE on the Comments and Checker 
> lists please find another draft at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/080707 
> 
> 
> and a diff to the LC-4 Editor's draft at (sorry, TinyURL not working today)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080606&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080707 
> 
> 
> and a diff to draft 1zp at
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080704&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080707 
> 
> 
> I very much hope that this is the last draft so we can agree to proceed 
> on Thursday's call.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> On 04/07/2008 14:06, Jo Rabin wrote:
>>
>> Thanks again to Rotan for picking up my mistake on the formatting of 
>> the  Object Element Processing Rule, annoying, especially since I had 
>> asked you all to look at it very carefully. Sigh. Festina Lente.
>>
>> So I have spent this morning chastising myself, and (perhaps more 
>> usefully) tightening up on the notion of Included Resources and which 
>> tests apply to them. This has meant some reasonably substantial (but 
>> not substantive) changes. I've also changed the wording of the Object 
>> Processing Rule once again to try to clarify it. In addition there is 
>> some tidying up of grammatical agreement, capitalization and so on.
>>
>> I hesitate to say this, in view of yesterday's debacle, but please 
>> check this all out carefully. It is very difficult to review one's own 
>> text and not read into it what one meant to say, irrespective of what 
>> it actually says.
>>
>> You will find the latest offering at
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/080704 
>>
>>
>> the diff to the LC-4 Editors draft at
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5jgu2q
>>
>> and the diff to yesterday's offering at
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5q5lpg
>>
>>
>> Jo
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/07/2008 00:54, Jo Rabin wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh dear. Thanks Rotan, and I have spotted some other bugs. The 
>>> fateful draft 42 to come tomorrow ... when I have thought about it a 
>>> bit more.
>>>
>>> On 03/07/2008 19:04, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
>>>> I have looked at the object element processing rule at [1] and I 
>>>> believe
>>>> I can follow what is intended, but unfortunately the indenting (which
>>>> represents the scope of operations in some cases) seems a little 
>>>> broken.
>>>>
>>>> ---Rotan
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/08 
>>>>
>>>> 0703#ObjectElementProcessingRule
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Jo Rabin
>>>> Sent: 03 July 2008 17:44
>>>> To: MWI BPWG Public
>>>> Subject: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zo (draft 41) - preview of PR
>>>> draft
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've posted a new version of mobileOK Basic Tests at
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/08 
>>>>
>>>> 0703
>>>>
>>>> Differences from LC-4 Editors Draft: http://tinyurl.com/5bly2q
>>>>
>>>> I intend to make some further minor tweaks to correct punctuation 
>>>> and some wording but they can wait. Please review this draft and in 
>>>> particular give your consideration to the Object Processing Rule 
>>>> which has been such a headache.
>>>>
>>>> Also I think
>>>> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove Appendix C
>>>> as it is now superfluous.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> Jo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [principal changes]
>>>>
>>>> Corrections as noted by Francois when posting previous draft into TR
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> Removal of reference to mobileOK Pro in Appendix C
>>>>
>>>> Removal of reference to mobileOK Pro in section 1 and renaming of
>>>> section 1.1 and 1.1.1
>>>>
>>>> Corrections to Object Processing and HTTP Response as noted by Dom 
>>>> and Francois and as noted by me on the public-bpwg-comment list.
>>>>
>>>> Changes to clarify the difference between type attribute, Internet 
>>>> Media
>>>>
>>>> Type and Presentation Media Type.
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 10:18:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC