- From: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:08:03 +0000
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Another quick comment from me below Francois Daoust wrote: > > 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 > - POWDER > [ - 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 ?!?". ] One option would be to slightly re-word but basically put back sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 from the previous version of this doc? [1]. That would show how one could create an RDF triple that stated that a given resource was mOK, the full POWDER example and the section on linkage. Jonathan's work on a microformat could be referred to (although I think I understood yesterday that he's going to revise this??) I've left out section 2.3 in that list as that's the RDFa one which, yes, raises something of a logical paradox. Phil. [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20081017 > > 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 Jonathan’s 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 >> >> WDYT? >> >> 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 >>> >>> >> > > -- Phil Archer w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 10:08:40 UTC