W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > July 2008

New draft of Mobile Web Applications Best Practices (rev 11) uploaded.

From: Adam Connors <adamconnors@google.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:08:13 +0100
Message-ID: <393b77970807070708k7c72b6f9r55e9185e76fe0b@mail.gmail.com>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hello all,

I've uploaded a new draft of MWABP that captures the comments from the
Sophia F2F here:

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080707

A few things to draw to your attention:

   - I wanted to get this out so you could review it before Thursday's call.
   I haven't yet had chance to read through for typo's, broken links, bad
   section numbering, etc, I will do that this later this week.

   - I ran out of steam before I could go over 3.7 Handling Device
   Capability Variation. I think we agreed in the F2F that we should trim it
   quite considerably. I am also skeptical of progressive enhancement and need
   to look at it some more. But this can be done in a future rev.

   - There are a couple of TODOs which will need to be removed before FPWD.
   If you can provide feedback on these as part of the call this Thursday I
   will produce an updated draft with them removed which is (in principle at
   least) ready for FPWD.

   - The index needs to be updated and the links to the BPs -- is there an
   automated way to do this ?

   - Quite a large number of changes / comments came out of the face-to-face
   so it's been hard to fold them all in without losing some of the initial
   context of the document. I've tried to boil the BPs down to the core intent
   and cut as many words as possible to make that intent clearer. I feel that
   this revision is a step in the right direction but I have almost certainly
   omitted information that is important, and misconstrued the intent of some
   comments and BPs, etc. So I'm thinking of this revision very much
as an *intermediate
   step *and expect some changes to be reverted, some cuts to be folded back
   in.

   - Whether we are happy for that to happen after FPWD or not is down to
   the group consensus. If there are critical issues / concerns that arise from
   this draft and you are able to boil them down to a finite number of issues /
   proposed changes, I will endeavour to fold them in quickly enough so that we
   can still go to FPWD on schedule.

   - Here is the doc on which I took notes during the F2F which may provide
   some context if certain changes are unexpected or controversial... NB: It's
   very rough: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dft77cn8_17dkz5wp8h&hl=en


I also have a couple of questions / issues related to the doc that I'd like
to raise in the group. Both are in the abstract / intro and might impact
scope so it would be good if we could come to a consensus before FPWD:

*"with the result that a number of Best Practices that were omitted from BP1
can now be included"
*--> Does this still capture it? The focus of this doc is quite different
from BP1. For the kinds of devices implicitly focussed on for BPWA many of
the BPs in BP1 are obselete... Many new BPs that are irrelevant to the DDC
have been added. This statement feels obselete to me, but I would like to
get a group opinion on it before I remove/edit it.

*"especially concerning statements that relate to the exploitation of device
capabilties and context"
*--> We've said this a hundred times, it's a good statement of intent, but I
don't know how to do it, and looking at what is in the doc right now this is
not necessary what we are doing. Having read the document, are we still
happy that this statement is valid ? What do we need to change (statement or
content?) to make it internally consistent.

Thanks,

Adam.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 14:08:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC