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

Hi Jo,

Just a quick question: 
3.16: Note: Who defined the 10Kilo bytes size? I am not sure whether this is realistic. Does it contain / count images and other page elements as well? Or is it just the HTML code size?  

Cheers


Heiko Gerlach 
Vendor Manager / Product Owner
Global Consumer Internet Services & Platforms 
Tel: +49 211 820 2168 
Fax: +49 211 820 2141 
Mobile +49 172 20 40 50 7 
E-Mail: heiko.gerlach@vodafone.com 
  

Vodafone Group Services GmbH
Mannesmannufer 2, D-40213 Düsseldorf
Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 53554 
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Joachim Peters, Rainer Wallek
 
 
This message and any files or documents attached are confidential and may also be legally privileged or protected by other legal rules. It is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee or you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy or disclose it or its contents or use it for any purpose. Thank you.  Please also note that transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error- 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
Sent: 07 July 2008 11:41
To: MWI BPWG Public
Subject: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zq (draft 43) - preview of PR draft


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-Test
>>> s/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-Test
>>> s/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 13:32:31 UTC