- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:18:41 +0100
- To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- CC: "Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group" <Heiko.Gerlach@vodafone.com>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
More or less as an aside, I have an N95 - or rather, I had one for about 3 weeks and got used to having the jolly thing around - and then the screen packed up. No, I didn't drop it, no, I didn't sit on it, it just stopped working. So just when I get used to surfing the Web with a really excellent phone... I'm now using a courtesy phone which, needless to say, is a lot closer to the DDC! In short, even sites that work really well on an N95 would do well to conform to mobileOK as well. Phil. Jo Rabin wrote: > > Comments in line: > > On 07/07/2008 15:48, Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group wrote: >> Hi Jo, >> >> Thanks for the update. I would like to keep the images out of that >> discussion. > Images have to be included in the discussion at some point. > >> 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. > > That is possibly true. A site that optimizes for N95 and iPhone only > won't necessarily be mobileOK. > >> >> 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?! > Yes. mobileOK is assessed only against the DDC specific User Agent > String. It means: > > "Conformance merely demonstrates that a basic experience is available, > interoperable with a large number of mobile devices. mobileOK Basic > conformance says nothing about richer, more sophisticated, experiences > that may be available, nor does it say anything about whether other > guidelines for development of Web content (such as [WCAG 1.0]) have been > followed." > > "The Best Practices, and hence the tests, are not promoted as guidance > for achieving the optimal user experience. The capabilities of many > devices exceed those defined by the DDC. It will often be possible, and > generally desirable, to provide an experience designed to take advantage > of the extra capabilities. > > Content providers should provide an experience that is mobileOK Basic > conformant to ensure a basic level of interoperability. Providers are > encouraged to provide enhanced experiences as well when these are > appropriate to their application and devices that are accessing them. " > > > >> >> 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: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] Sent: 07 July 2008 15:44 >> To: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group >> Cc: MWI BPWG Public >> Subject: Re: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zq (draft 43) - preview of >> PR draft >> >> It comes from long deliberation over several years. The figure refers >> to the markup alone, when taking images and css into account you get 20k. >> >> The figure is supposed to refer to devices that are minimally capable >> of accessing the Web as modelled by the DDC. If you are serving to >> more capable devices you are expected to exploit their capabilities >> and will no doubt send larger and richer pages. If you want to be >> mobileOK, though, you must be prepared to deal with minimal devices of >> this kind. >> >> Jo >> >> On 07/07/2008 14:31, Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group wrote: >>> 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&doc >>> 2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2Fmobil >>> eOK-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&doc >>> 2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2Fmobil >>> eOK-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-Tes >>>>>> t >>>>>> 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-Tes >>>>>> t >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> > > > -- Phil Archer Chief Technical Officer, Family Online Safety Institute w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 15:19:24 UTC