- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:06:01 +0000
- To: manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org
- CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
That seems fair to me. Jo On 13/11/2008 12:03, Manrique Lopez wrote: > El jue, 13-11-2008 a las 11:53 +0000, Jo Rabin escribió: >>> Why not keeping the previous value (http://validator.w3.org/mobile/), >> and explain that supportedBy value could be any checker interface >> available, like the ones mentioned before (CTIC and .mobi ones) >> > >> >> Because having specifically called out the W3C interface in the earlier >> section it seems fair to mention another checker elsewhere, especially >> since I'm an editor of the document and would like my company's products >> recognised too. Recall that the W3C Web interface is not endorsed by the >> BPWG (it's just the checker library that is). >> >> It would be reasonable to add the note you mention for clarification, >> anyhow. >> > > So, keeping in mind that the document should be as much neutral as we > can, I think we should use an "example" value, like: > <supportedby src="http://example.net/validator" /> > > And add the note for clarification >
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 12:18:29 UTC