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, 7 Jul 2008 14:12:57 +0200
Message-Id: <6C32ACE4-076B-4A37-A612-9BE7230F60F7@w3.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

+1 for the Abstract
+1 for the Introduction

"Draft 44!!!", the crowd shouts with excitment.

Francois.

On 7 juil. 08, at 13:39, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

> 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 t 
> o claim mobileOK conformance will be described separately. Content w 
> hich passes the tests has taken some steps to provide a functional u 
> ser 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 ...
>
> Jo
>
>
>
> 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 12:14:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:57 UTC