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

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

From: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:08:03 +0000
Message-ID: <49141383.4080302@fosi.org>
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
>  [ - 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.


[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 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
>> 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

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