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

Thanks Jo.

I think that the example wodges of markup could usefully move to an appendix
> if they are not trimmed back anyway.
>

Sounds good. I plan to trim these sections back and add an editors note that
we're still investigating this topic. I'll move some bits to an appendix.

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

Indeed, I did this for a couple. Two or three were left as conspicuous TODOs
to encourage a response from the group. With some feedback I'll remove or
convert to editorial comments.

It seems to me that using scripting and location (did that ever make it in
> as a BP?) are just that, aren't they?
>

Location is referred to in the list "Device and PIM" information in the BP
about user control. The assumption of scripting is ubiquitous throughout the
doc. So they are definitely in there, it's more a question of whether it's a
core theme of the document or not... which the statement up front seems to
suggest. I don't feel strongly about it, I just wanted to call it out in
case anyone feels we are being incongruous. We can make a call on this
later.



On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Jo
>
> 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:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>  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:
>>      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dft77cn8_17dkz5wp8h&hl=en
>>      <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.
>>
> 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?
>
> Jo
>