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

Actually, I as recall it, Phil was part of the team that crafted the 
current wording of the abstract ... be that as it may ... I am going to 
say Content Provider that ... rather than authors that ... as this is 
consistent with section 1 ...

Jo

On 07/07/2008 13:12, Francois Daoust wrote:
> +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 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 ...
>>
>> 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 12:16:25 UTC