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

Hi Adam

It looks good, I haven't completed reviewing but it's looking solid. 
I've got some editorial comments but not much of substance.

More comments in line.


On 07/07/2008 15:08, Adam Connors wrote:
> Hello all,
> I've uploaded a new draft of MWABP that captures the comments from the 
> Sophia F2F here:
> 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.
I think that the example wodges of markup could usefully move to an 
appendix if they are not trimmed back anyway.

>     * 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.
As francois notes, if these can be couched as questions from the editor 
this is fine.

>     * The index needs to be updated and the links to the BPs -- is there
>       an automated way to do this ?
If you use XMLspec then this is generated for you, of course. But there 
are down sides to using XMLSpec (how long do you have?) I have an XSLT 
which goes part way to turning XHTML into XMLSpec, if that is of interest.

>     * 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.
I think it is looking cleaner, but fwiw think there is a bit of 
duplication which could do with trimming back. Think a couple of things 
missing but would need to consult old notes.
>     * 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.
I think the document needs to be tidy and focussed and clear of obvious 
errors. Things being wrong or unclear is not actually a problem 
(especially if there's an editorial note saying that more clarity is 
sought). The point of FPWD is to get feedback and get it early-ish.
>     * 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:
>       <>
> 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 
> /"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.
I noticed a number of places where back reference is made so it seems to 
me to hold water still. But when you say that some of them are obsolete, 
that raises a thought in my mind that they are likely not issues for 
devices of this kind, and it might be worth making a list. e.g. we are 
expecting tables to be supported. But then again, it's probably still 
bad practice to lay things out in huge tables that don't fit on the screen.
> /"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.
It seems to me that using scripting and location (did that ever make it 
in as a BP?) are just that, aren't they?


Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 13:56:13 UTC