W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > November 2008

Re: New draft of mobileOK Scheme 2008-11-06

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:31:22 +0100
Message-ID: <49140AEA.3060503@w3.org>
To: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

I confess I'm a bit surprised to see that the section "Claiming mobileOK 
Conformance using POWDER" was entirely removed.

My recollection of our discussion was that:
  1. it is not mandatory to use a machine-readable claim to claim 
conformance to mobileOK
  2. people may still use the machine-readable claim, and that's 
something we still want to promote as a good practice.

In short, I think the document should just provide several ways to claim 
conformance to mobileOK:
  - the logo
  [ - and possibly RDFa although I'm not sure that's such a good idea 
since there's no way to embed such a claim in a mobileOK representation, 
leading to a pretty confusing message "Use RDFa to claim you're 
mobileOK, but not in a mobileOK page. What ?!?". ]

Did I miss something?


Phil Archer wrote:
> Whilst I understand that this draft reflects the resolutions taken at 
> TPAC, I would like to propose an addition to the document that at least 
> points to the option to make the mobileOK claim machine-readable as 
> follows.
> 2. Further Steps
> As the previous section makes clear, the mobileOK trustmark is an icon 
> that may be included on any Web page that conforms to mobileOK Basic 
> Tests. However, it is possible to go further and make the claim 
> machine-readable using any of a number of different methods, thus making 
> mobileOK content more readily discoverable. The Protocol for Web 
> Description Resources [@@POWDER] includes an example of how to do this 
> in its documentation and alternatives include RDFa and microformats (@@ 
> link to Jonathanís work on this)
> Link to http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#evidence (this is due to be 
> updated w/c 10 November, see it now at 
> http://philarcher.org/powder/20081104.html#evidence
> Phil.
> Jo Rabin wrote:
>> Hi folks, I have updated the Editor's draft of mobileOK scheme [1] in 
>> line with the resolutions taken at the F2F. I did not put anything in 
>> the document about sticking a date in the ALT test for the trustmark 
>> as I don't recall that actually being a resolution. And anyway, I 
>> don't understand what that is supposed to represent, how you'd encode 
>> it and why it would be useful, what effect it would have on the 
>> correct use of ALT and so on.
>> I'd like to close out on this by the time mobileOK Basic Tests goes to 
>> Rec (early Dec). A couple of  further things need sorting out on this:
>> a) ACTION-869 - Review the mobileOK license in more details and send 
>> further questions to rigo [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-10-27]
>> b) RESOLUTION: Dom, Jo and Rigo to form a subcommittee to come back 
>> with a final proposal to the group within 4 weeks following on from 
>> Rigo's current proposal.
>> I'm attending to these now. Meanwhile would appreciate comments on the 
>> latest draft.
>> thanks
>> Jo
>> [1] 
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20081106
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 09:32:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:52 UTC