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

Re: MobileOK scheme

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>
Message-ID: <op.uvl1ipmzwxe0ny@widsith.local>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:01 UTC