- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:19:27 +0200
- To: "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:07:59 +0200, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:18:10 +0200, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>>> I don't understand your objection which seems to be rather to do with
>>> mobileOK Basic Tests than this document.
>> No, it is with the specific phrasing that says "doing a really good
>> job is not mobileOK", rather than saying "doing a good job can also be
>> mobileOK and is encouraged in the overall work behind mobileOK".
>
> And I thought Groundhog day was in February.
Well, I tried it once in April, and it seems to have come back.
> I don't think there's a lot of disagreement here. The spirit of
> mobileOK, and, AIUI, the letter of it, is that you must be able to
> return a basic representation in the absence of information that says
> you're talking to a more able device.
Agreed.
> Users of devices that are more capable device have a reasonable
> expectation that they will get a representation that exploits their
> device's capabilities to present something better.
Agreed.
> In other words, being mobileOK means that you can deal with simple
> devices.
Agreed.
> Since there is no agreement what a more capable device can do, we can't
> say that mobileOK means that you can also do X, Y and Z.
Agreed. *BUT* there is also no justification to say that the result of
doing this is somehow not mobileOK, which is what the current text implies.
> However, an Opera Mini user, or an iPhone user, can be reasonably sure
> that a mobileOK site will exploit the capabilities of their device in
> such a way as to give them an enhanced experience.
No, they can't be reasonably sure actually. But nor should we be saying
that a site which does this is somehow doing something that is not
MobileOK.
> Again, mobileOK and the BPs from which it is ultimately derived do not
> mean working to the lowest common denominator.
Right. And I want to remove the statement in the MobileOK scheme that
looks like "not working to the LCD is not mobileOK".
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 09:20:07 UTC