- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:00:55 +0100
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
> to the point of starting a new hundread year war, but did you skip that > change on purpose? Get your crossbow ready: 1) According to my understanding and recollection of the call on Thursday, the consensus went with Kai in saying that if a resource was linked from a mobileOK document then the linked document should not return a 406, though there is no requirement on it to be mobileOK. If my understanding is at fault then I will redraft and reissue. 2) Ref POWDER, in the following Claims to be W3C mobileOK conformant are represented using Description Resources (see [POWDER]), described separately for the sake of consistency with 1.3 you'd like it changed to Claims to be W3C mobileOK conformant will be represented using Description Resources (see [POWDER]), described separately Is that the idea? Jo mobileOK Fever with apologies to Merle Haggard mobileOK fever, a sickness born down deep within my soul mobileOK fever, the years keep flyin' by like the high line poles The wrinkles in my forehead show the drafts I put behind me, They continue to remind me how fast I'm growing old Guess I'll die with this fever in my soul I wonder just what makes a man keep pushin' on What makes me keep on humming this old editors song Yeah I've edited this document a hundred times or more There can't be one single place that I ain't changed before http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zXrp-pghio On 07/07/2008 11:17, Francois Daoust wrote: > 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 11:01:42 UTC