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

Hi François and Phil, 

these comments seem to be made against an older version of the license. 

I have taken the corrections as far as the issues were still present 
in the current document.

On Monday 22 June 2009, Francois Daoust wrote:
[...]
> 
> 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."

done
> 
> 
> Section 2.1
> -----
> "Claims of mobileOK conformance means the assertion that"
> => "*A claim* of mobileOK conformance *asserts that*"

this is a definition. A definition of an assertion is not the assertion 
itself. But I re-worded some of it. Those words are now found in 
section 2.2. It now reads:

A Claim of mobileOK® conformance means that a resource can be requested 
so that the response conforms to the mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 and hence 
will provide at least a functional user experience on mobile devices.
> 
> 
> 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?

This is now in section 2.1 and is reflected in the phrase above
> 
> 
> 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.

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

done
> 
> 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!

done
> 
> 
> 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.

done

Thanks for the feedback

Rigo