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

Re: ACTION-957: Ask Rigo to consider Jo's comments and revise mobileOK license accordingly

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:33:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4A3F7A22.30706@w3.org>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Public MWBP <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Rigo,

There are a few corrections that have not made it to the latest version 
of the mobileOK license, see below. All these changes are editorial changes.

The mobileOK Scheme document is ready for publication.
Both documents should be published at the same time.
Can you make these changes as soon as possible?


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
-----
"so that the response conforms to mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 [mobileOK]"
=> [mobileOK] links to the reference to mobileOK Basic in the mobileOK 
Scheme document. Shouldn't it rather target the mobileOK Basic 
specification directly?


Section 2.2
-----
"when dereferenced in the manner described in [mobileOK]"
=> "when dereferenced in the manner described in W3C mobileOK(r) Basic 
Tests 1.0 [mobileOK]"
=> same as above. [mobileOK] links to a reference to mobileOK Basic in 
the mobileOK Scheme document, not to the mobileOK Basic specification 
itself.


Section 3.1
-----
" set forth in sectionn 2. of this document."
=> " set forth in *section* 2. of this document."


Section 3.2
-----
Required text for the mobileOK logo in section 3.1 and section 3.2 differ:
- in section 3.1: "the alternate text in the <img /> -tag MUST say *W3C 
mobileOK logo*"
- in section 3.2: "the alternate text in the <img /> -tag MUST say *W3C 
mobileOK*"

Both required texts should be identical!


Section 3.2
-----
It would be preferable if both sentences said "img element" rather than 
"img tag" and perhaps the required text should be quoted.


Thanks!
Francois.




Francois Daoust wrote:
> Rigo Wenning wrote:
>> François, Phil,
>>
>> Done, 
> 
> Thanks, Rigo!
> 
> 
>> but as W3C mobileOK Scheme 1.0 is still an Editor's Draft, I'm not yet 
>> willing to flip the ACL to "public" on the license document. If 
>> everything is ok, I will discuss with Ian on when and how to flip. I 
>> hope this isn't an issue for the WG discussions.
> 
> No problem. We will try to sync the publication of both documents.
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> BTW, I found an unescaped ampersand in the file and fixed it in CVS
>>
>> Best,
>> Rigo
>>
>> On Tuesday 16 June 2009, Phil Archer wrote:
>>> Hi Rigo,
>>>
>>> Can I ask if you've had time to look at this? It's on the agenda
>>> for this week's telecon (15.30 CET).
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>> François Daoust wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> 3. All subject to you finalising any further changes,
>>>>> substantive or editorial, to the licence doc
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html
>>>>>
>>>>> All of which is s gentle nudge to ask you to complete item 3 by
>>>>> next Tuesday if possible please.
>>>> To do that, you'll need the list of changes to be brought to the
>>>> license. See Jo's email, reviewed by the working group, at:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0021.html
>>>> (the list starts near the middle of the email with "ACTION-954")
>>>>
>>>> Francois.
>>>> [...]
>>
>>
> 
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 12:34:11 UTC

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