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

MWABP stable draft for F2F (no update I'm afraid).

From: Adam Connors <adamconnors@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:00:27 +0100
Message-ID: <393b77970810140100q3c47d93al98cc486b0a60ede3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hello,

Apologies. I'm afraid there will be no new draft of MWABP in time for the
f2f next wk as promised... Events have overtaken me in unlikely and amusing
ways which I'll share with you over a beer some time.

The stable draft for discussion next wk is the same as last wks:

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20081008

Please review thoroughly so we can be up to speed and don't need to keep
Bryan out of his Osaka sleep-pod any longer than necessary. Below is the
beginnings of a rough agenda, please add to it on this thread.

*Topics for discussion in my mind:
*
1. Bryan is going to add some comments (or a draft) regarding compatibility.
Would be good to take the opportunity to discuss f2f in the broader group.

2. I have added a number of recommendations drafted from various sources
around Latency -- 3 on image handling, and a few that are just headings at
the moment on javascript parsing. It would be good to go through these, add
similar if we can think of more, discuss  what level of detail is
appropriate... Regarding the javascript ones especially these are taken from
desktop browser research and may not be applicable to mobile browsers. Maybe
people in the group with specific experience of javascript parsing on
mobiles could come up with some specific recommendations.

3. After the last f2f Scott added a section on User Interface, it would be
good to review this section, expand, edit as appropriate.

4. In the light of (2) & (4) I'm beginning to worry that our top-level
headings need a bit of a refactor. The following sections all feel a little
ad-hoc to me and I think with some thought we can come up with a grouping
that will express the *intent *more clearly.


   - Conservative Use of Resources -- do we need a heading that expresses *why
   *this is important. Or something more focussed -- currently a bit of a
   catch all.
   - One Web -- contains only one recommendations, can this we expressed as
   part of a different heading.
   - Handling Device Capability Variation -- candidate for refactoring.
   - User Interface
   - Latency -- both UI and Latency are tack-ons that haven't had much
   thought. Would be good to extract a section heading that is more expressive.

5. In this latest draft "Personalization" has become unwieldy. We probably
need to extract the comments on cookies and find another home for these...
Finding a home for these might inform our discussion (4) above.

6. "Handling Device Capability Variation" contains a *lot* of detail. Would
be good to extract from this which parts are relevant so we can trim it down
without losing key information.

7. Anything else you want to raise, please add it to this thread so we can
form a rough agenda... In particular, the document is large and we keep
adding to it. Please *critically* review BPs and identify any that can be
cut (don't provide sufficient value) / need expansion (are too woolly) / can
be refactored (have significant overlap with other BPs).


thanks,

Adam.
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 08:01:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:59 UTC