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: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:00:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4871F767.4050500@mtld.mobi>
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

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