- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:33:43 +0100
- To: <public-bpwg@w3.org>
ACTION-952 Remove the word trustmark from scheme document ACTION-953 Edit mobileOK scheme appropriately to discussion with Rigo at London F2F ACTION-954 Review the final mobileOK license for approval during next BPWG call --- ACTION-952: Done ACTION-953: I could not find anything else to edit. I put a new version of the document at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090609 .html I am now done with it, though Phil may wish to check that the POWDER example is still valid. Oh, and the references need updating. --- ACTION-954: With reference to the draft of the mobileOK Logo and Policy [1] (member only link at present) I have the following comments: [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html Section 1: " More information can be found on the W3C mobileOK(r) Scheme 1.0 document." => " More information can be found in the W3C mobileOK(r) Scheme 1.0 document." Section 2.1: "Claims of mobileOK conformance means the assertion that" => "A claim of mobileOK conformance asserts that" Section 2.2: " dereferenced in the manner described in the mobileOK(r) Scheme 1.0 document passes all the relevant tests contained in mobileOK(r) Basic Tests 1.0." => " dereferenced in the manner described in mobileOK(r) Basic Tests 1.0 passes all the tests described in that document" Ibid: "if all the URIs/IRIs dereferenced in the manner described in the mobileOK(r) Scheme 1.0 document pass all the relevant tests contained in mobileOK(r) Basic Tests 1.0." => " if all the URIs/IRIs dereferenced in the manner described in mobileOK(r) Basic Tests 1.0 pass all the tests described in that document" Section 2.3: This basically repeats 2.2 Section 3.1: " set forth in sectionn 2. of this document." => " set forth in section 2. of this document." Section 3.2: cf the following from section 3.1 " If reproduced in an HTML context, the alternate text in the <img /> -tag MUST say W3C mobileOK logo" the text in 3.2 saying " If reproduced in an HTML context, the alternate text in the <img /> -tag MUST say W3C mobileOK" should per the text in 3.1 i.e. they are not identical as things stand. It would be preferable if both said "img element" rather than "img tag" and perhaps the required text should be quoted. Ref the resolution taken at the F2F "RESOLUTION: The working group thanks Rigo his work on the MobileOK License which we, pending Jo's review, will launch with all speed." I suggest that we request that Rigo amends the license as appropriate. If the Scheme document is now to everyone's satisfaction, then the references need to be updated, Phil needs to be happy with the POWDER bits and then we can all move on to fresh fields [woods] and pastures new, presumably having taken a further resolution on some future (but not too distant) call. Jo
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 12:34:18 UTC