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

Re: New draft of mobileOK Scheme

From: Phil Archer <parcher@fosi.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:15:16 +0100
Message-ID: <48FC6844.2030809@fosi.org>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi all,

I've just take a read through this document (again!) and need to update 
one minor detail wrt. POWDER and add a comment for the WG's 
consideration. First the update which follows changes we're introducing 
following comments received during our Last Call, the results of which 
will be published following our face to face meeting this week.

Rather than a link relationship type of powder, we will use 
'describedby'. Also, rather than use the generic XML MIME type, we'll be 
registering one specifically for POWDER (text/powder+xml). Therefore the 
current text:

Section 2.4 Linking to Claims.

All mobileOK resources are HTML. In the following example a powder 
document is linked using the link element. The value of the rel 
attribute, "powder" is namespaced by the profile attribute of the head 
element.

[..]

<link rel="powder" href="powder.xml" type="application/xml"/>

Should now be

All mobileOK resources are HTML. In the following example a powder 
document is linked using the link element. The value of the rel 
attribute, "describedby" is namespaced by the profile attribute of the 
head element.

[..]

<link rel="describedby" href="powder.xml" type="text/powder+xml"/>


And so to the comment.

The mobileOK Scheme document does not, in this draft, make any reference 
to HTTP Link - for which mobileOK is a use case. I understand from Mark 
Nottingham that he is updating his draft [1] on this (that will be 
version 3) and the signs are positive for RFC status. The bigger 
confusion surrounds the arrant lack of consensus across the community on 
how to register relationship types. We have marked support for HTTP Link 
as a feature at risk in the current version of the relevant POWDER doc 
[2] and this will remain the case in the short term. If we get to the 
point where it is holding up progress towards Proposed Rec (expected no 
later than  December) then we'll mark that section as informative - but 
either way, we're not dropping HTTP Link and suggest that, as mobileOK 
scheme is destined to be a Note, not a Rec, it too should refer to HTTP 
Link in some way.

Sorry I'm not at TPAC today - I'll arrive tomorrow afternoon and hope to 
  catch up with the group then.

Phil.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-dr-20080815/#httplink

-- 
Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/


Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
> Hi folks
> 
> You'll find a new draft of the mobileOK scheme document at [1]. Afaic 
> this is nearly done, though others might think it far too skimpy a 
> document.
> 
> Jo
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20081017
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 11:15:53 UTC

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