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

As Rotan observes, this is a bit of a groundhog day topic. And as he 
observes also it does not set out to be something to aspire to, it sets 
out to be a lower limit of what a content provider should bother 
accommodating.

As such it does not especially represent the state of any particular 
market. It is however, a proof point that it is representative of a 
large number of phones in use today in a large number of markets.

Whether the DDC will or should evolve over time is an open question to 
my mind, as it is an abstraction that models the minimum capability that 
is needed to enjoy some kind of Web browsing experience.

Jo

On 07/07/2008 16:14, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
> I see this issue about the DDC being raised many times. As far as I understand, the DDC does not set out a target for mobileOK. It establishes a *lower* limit. It says that any device whose capabilities are less than those of the DDC should not be considered to be capable of presenting mobileOK content. Essentially, you can ignore any device that is less than the DDC. To be able to enjoy mobileOK content, your device has to be *at least* as capable as the DDC. If your device is better (and presumably it is!) then you should have a better experience. And if the site is able to recognise and make use of the extra capabilities of your device, your experience will be much better again.
> 
> So that's the role of the DDC, as far as I can see. While the average mobile device will improve over time, there should not be as regular a need to revise the DDC. Though of course I think that will eventually be necessary.
> 
> ---Rotan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group
> Sent: 07 July 2008 15:49
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: MWI BPWG Public
> Subject: RE: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zq (draft 43) - preview of PR draft
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?!
> 
> 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.
>>>>>
> 
>

Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 15:45:46 UTC