New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zr (draft 44) - preview of PR draft

And here it is, he says only just on the polite side of tersely.

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/080707r

Diffs to all previous relevant drafts as links in the document.

Jo


On 07/07/2008 13:15, Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
> 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 12:22:48 UTC