W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > June 2009

ACTION-952, ACTION-953 and ACTION-954 on MobileOK Scheme 1.0

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:33:43 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B401EFB183@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC