RE: Proposed blog post about mobileOK Basic Tests implementation

I agree, this is really good. Can I suggest two minor tweaks?

1) Add a link for mobileOK Basic 1.0 Tests 
http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/

and for the Best Practices
http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/


2) Add a direct link for the public-mobileOK-checker list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/

Jo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok-
> checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ignacio Marin
> Sent: 03 June 2007 11:34
> To: Sean Owen; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG; public-
> mobileok-checker@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed blog post about mobileOK Basic Tests
implementation
> 
> 
> It sounds perfect to me. It briefly comments what is happening around
> the Mobile OK Checker TF activity.
> 
> Thanks a lot, Sean.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nacho
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org] En nombre de Sean Owen
> Enviado el: viernes, 01 de junio de 2007 18:14
> Para: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG;
> public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
> Asunto: Proposed blog post about mobileOK Basic Tests implementation
> 
> 
> On the last BPWG call, I volunteered to write a blog post about our
> work on implementing mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0. Here's the text -- any
> mistakes or edits? suggestions?
> 
> 
> Towards a Common mobileOK Basic Tests Implementation
> 
> To paraphrase the book title: all I really need to know about HTML I
> learned from the W3C validator. The specification is of course
> necessary, but as a developer, I'm usually more interested in whether
> my particular document follows the spec, and if not why not, and how I
> can fix it, and I'm usually interested in knowing this right now. The
> supporting validation tool is almost all you need to practice good
> HTML. It's vital to provide tools like this to bring specifications to
> life and make them practical for the developer community. So, it's
> time we followed suit.
> 
> We've created the Best Practices recommendation, and have nearly
> finalized the mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 recommendation. It describes
> automated tests for mobile content in pseudo-code, which is
> practically begging for an implementation in software. We sincerely
> believe in our recommendations and want to add value for developers,
> not just list a bunch of ideas. So, we've begun to create a reference
> implementation of mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0.
> 
> Fortunately several groups had already begun this independently. Dom
> created an early implementation of some tests at
> http://validator.w3.org/mobile/. dotMobi has released
> http://ready.mobi, which implements many mobileOK Basic tests (among
> other tests). Fundacion CTIC has developed an implementation at
> http://validadores.tawdis.net/mobileok/.
> 
> Why create another implementation? we want to create an open-source,
> reusable library that combines the strengths of all these
> implementations. Fortunately, the developers behind *all three* of
> these are involved in the collaborative effort within BPWG to build a
> reference implementation. By creating an open, generic library, we
> enable developers to embed this suite of tests in tools, run a private
> instance, help enhance and fix the code, or even build new tools off
> of it.
> 
> It's an international effort, with five active developers already from
> Germany, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I
> must say I'm pleased to see how open everyone has been about
> contributing time, code and experience. It's also great to see how
> well the W3C can incubate collaborative development efforts like this.
> 
> You can see our work to date in CVS at
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2007/mobileok-ref/. It's a Java- and
> XSL-based implementation. You can follow or join in the discussion on
> the public-mobileok-checker mailing list; you can join or view
> archives at http://lists.w3.org. We're working towards a first "alpha"
> release in mid-July, at which point you'll hear from us again since
> we'll need everyone's help to play-test this thing. Watch this space
> for more.
>

Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 08:14:54 UTC