Re: Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

 Dear Ben Cerbera Millard ,

The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the W3C mobileOK Basic
Tests 1.0 (2nd Last Call) published on 25 May 2007. Thank you for having
taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070928/.

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 19 October 2007. In case of disagreement, you are requested to
provide a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working
Group. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the
opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the
Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in the
W3C Recommendation Track.

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
Michael(tm) Smith
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/003f01c7ae12$62d9be30$0201a8c0@ben9xr3up2lv7v
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/


=====

Your comment on the document as a whole:
> > I do think it's feasible to write once for the desktop and some kind
> > of portable device, but such a device is substantially different
> from
> > what people have in their average phone / browser.
> 
> Perhaps the Default Delivery Context (DDC) is out of date? It seems to
> be 
> based on mobile phones produced in the mid-1990's. They have become 
> radically more capable in the decade since then. My experience is
> mainstream 
> mobiles getting closer to desktop browsers each year (Opera [1] and
> Webkit 
> [2] being industry leaders in this regard).
> 
> The mobile industry's aims are clear from their actions: make the whole
> web 
> available [3][4]. Surely W3C's MWI should be centered on making that
> happen 
> faster and more effectively? The current work seems to be on degrading
> 
> current content to accomodate a DDC akin to decade-old phones which,
> AFAIK, 
> no longer exist.
> 
> Vodafone [5], T-Mobile [3] and Three [6] already have a flat rate for
> web 
> access in the UK (as Simon Pieters speculated on). So for one thing,
> the 
> financial cost of page downloads is being solved by market
> factors...just 
> like it did for desktop PCs. :-)


Working Group Resolution:
The DDC is defined as the minimum specification for a device which can 
provide a usable user experience of the Web. As such it has enduring value
irrespective of considerations of availability of increasing capabilities
of devices in some markets. Our understanding is that such devices
represent the only means of access to the Web in some areas of the world.
It it arguable that even in markets in which more capable devices are
common, people will choose not to carry such devices all the time and may
wish to use alternative lighter weight solutions more appropriate to the
context (sport, leisure etc.)

----

Your comment on the document as a whole:
> > If "HTML Basic" existed I think there would be a good argument to
> > specify it instead.
> 
> Since text/html work has started again at W3C in the form of the
> HTMLWG, 
> perhaps an "HTML Basic" spec would now be feasible? Then again, the
> 1998 
> attempt at this [7] didn't take off, so reduced HTML was not the
> solution 
> even with devices *that* limited. And since current mobiles handle full
> HTML 
> websites, degrading content at the origin server seems ever more
> unnecessary 
> (the network can do this on-the-fly if it needs to be done).
> 
> Sincere thanks for taking the feedback from the new HTMLWG seriously. I
> too 
> hope HTMLWG will add more practical value to the W3C's Mobile Web
> Initiative 
> (MWI) [8].


Working Group Resolution:
Proposed Resolution: We perceive a need for use of Basic today - note that
cHTML is an example of successful mobile markup. It's possible that this
need will disappear in the future. If it does, then the need for that
specification will diminish.


----

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 03:13:11 UTC