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

OK then the proposal is to remove 3 references to POWDER and to change 
the abstract to say

This document defines the tests that provide the basis for making a 
claim of W3C® mobileOK Basic™ conformance and are based on W3C Mobile 
Web Best Practices [Best Practices]. The details of how to claim 
mobileOK conformance will be described separately. Content which passes 
the tests has taken some steps to provide a functional user experience 
for users of basic mobile devices whose capabilities at least match 
those of the Default Delivery Context (DDC).

mobileOK Basic primarily assesses basic usability, efficiency and 
interoperability. It does not address the important goal of assessing 
whether users of more advanced devices enjoy a richer user experience 
than is possible using the DDC.

and change the intro to say

mobileOK Basic is a scheme for assessing whether Web resources (Web 
content) can be delivered in a manner that is conformant with Mobile Web 
Best Practices [Best Practices] to a simple and largely hypothetical 
mobile user agent, the Default Delivery Context.

This document describes W3C mobileOK Basic tests for delivered content, 
and describes how to emulate the DDC when requesting that content.

The intention of mobileOK is to help catalyze development of Web content 
that provides a functional user experience in a mobile context. It is 
not a test for browsers, user agents or mobile devices, and is not 
intended to imply anything about the way these should behave.

mobileOK does not imply endorsement or suitability of content. For 
example, it must not be assumed that a claim that a resource is mobileOK 
conformant implies that it is of higher informational value, is more 
reliable, more trustworthy or is more appropriate for children than any 
other resource.

speak now ...


On 07/07/2008 12:21, Francois Daoust wrote:
> Jo Rabin wrote:
>>  > to the point of starting a new hundread year war, but did you skip 
>> that
>>  > change on purpose?
>> Get your crossbow ready:
> So much violence, tsss ;-)
>> 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.
> OK, I'm fine with that.
>> 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?
> Not exactly. The problem lies in mentioning POWDER. Using a future tense 
> or oven a conditional tense does not completely solve the problem. I 
> have to check this in details with some W3C Process specialist, but at 
> Proposed Recommendation (and Recommendation), the only visible 
> specifications are the ones that are Recommendations as well (with the 
> very recent possibility to mention RDFa, but that's another story), and 
> we cannot say that POWDER is going to become a Recommendation at that 
> point, even though that's very very likely, and even though we really 
> really want to use it... (well, we may end up with RDFa as Phil pointed 
> out)
> What I suggest is to completely remove the mention of POWDER from this 
> document, not to introduce any dependency here. The mobileOK Scheme 
> document will be dependent on POWDER, but mobileOK Basic Tests does not 
> have to be. Final text in all three places could be:
> "The details of the mechanism for claiming mobileOK conformance will be 
> described separately."
> Francois, who deeply apologizes for willing to eradicate POWDER from all 
> our documents... not my fault!

Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 11:39:56 UTC