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, 07 Jul 2008 17:03:21 +0200
Message-ID: <48723039.9090206@w3.org>
To: "Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group" <Heiko.Gerlach@vodafone.com>
CC: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group wrote:
> Hi Jo,
> 
> Thanks for the update. I would like to keep the images out of that discussion. So I think we should focus on the html markup size. But we should have in mind that devices are improving steadily. 
> I am concerned that at the end of our discussion many made for mobile sites which are delivering good user experience may not fit with the MobileOK requirements.

100Kb ~ 1$ is still a common thing, and having to pay 0.2$ per page is 
already expensive. I doubt we should go beyond that. As Jo stated, this 
is the content delivered to the DDC, content providers should take 
advantage of device capabilities (on which I would add knowledge that 
the user has a flat rate for instance) whenever possible.

Note that these limits already appear in Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, 
which is about to be transitioned to Recommendation, so there is no real 
way we can change these values now:
http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#iddiv3126702920

> 
> A 2nd item is the following: If we set up a dediacted mobile ok user agent string the site owners could return/deliver complete different content based on the user agent. And than they are counted as mobile OK?!

That's precisely the idea! The content providers should take advantage 
of the capabilities of devices whenever possible!

And it indeed has the following not-so-good consequence: a content 
provider may return a mostly empty page upon receipt of a request that 
contains the mobileOK User-Agent string, and be mobileOK.

Francois.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 15:04:07 UTC

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