- 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