ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance?

Support claims of partial conformance?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

mobileOK Web Description Resources

Raised by:

Sean Owen

Opened on:

2006-04-19

Description:

This, and related questions, have been circulating for a while. Now that we\'ve
had time to digest the mobileOK draft and some use cases, I believe it\'s a key
set of questions we should revisit first. Let me attempt to distill and present
the thinking so far, as I see it:

Should we attempt to support claims of partial conformance in the mobileOK
trustmark mechanism that we are defining? or specifically make that hard? For
example should someone be able to claim, within the mobileOK trustmark
framework, that a resource meets BPs 1, 3, and 9?

We seem to have reached consensus that there should not be \"mobileOK Gold\" or
\"mobileOK Plus\", that we should not specifically identify, name and promote
subsets of all BPs with separate trustmarks.

Is there value in claims of partial conformance? does it harm the mobileOK
trustmark? should we allow or prevent partial claims as a result, or remain neutral?

On the one hand, partial conformance claims may lead to dilution and
fragmentation of the \"mobileOK brand\". Will people be advertising \"I\'m mostly
mobileOK\" and leaving it at that? On the other hand, if mobileOK is all or
nothing, then anyone who doesn\'t totally agree with what we\'ve picked as the
important BPs/tests will just have to pass on mobileOK; mobileOK then creates no
particular incentive to adopt BPs.

--

Per my ACTION-300 from the meeting on Thursday 6th July.

A note has gone in to the mobileOK draft [1] requesting public comment on
whether mobileOK sustains the idea that you can claim conformance to individual
BPs or whther you have to claim conformance to the whole thing or nothing.

Jo
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/060708#id4485315

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Minutes for BPWG f2f, London, Day 1 (from mike@w3.org on 2007-07-19)
2. Re: ISSUE-188: Should THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY be clarified? (from chaals@opera.com on 2007-03-16)
3. Re: ISSUE-188: Should THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY be clarified? (from chaals@opera.com on 2007-03-16)
4. Re: ISSUE-188: Should THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY be clarified? (from srowen@google.com on 2007-03-14)
5. RE: ISSUE-188: Should THEMATIC_CONSISTENCY be clarified? (from paulwalsh@segala.com on 2007-03-14)
6. [minutes] Thu 16 Nov (from dom@w3.org on 2006-11-17)
7. [minutes] Thursday Aug 17 teleconf (from dom@w3.org on 2006-08-17)
8. [minutes] Thu July 13 teleconf (from dom@w3.org on 2006-07-13)
9. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from andrea@trasatti.it on 2006-07-05)
10. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from parcher@icra.org on 2006-07-04)
11. RE: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from paulwalsh@segala.com on 2006-07-04)
12. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from chaals@opera.com on 2006-07-04)
13. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from parcher@icra.org on 2006-07-04)
14. RE: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from paulwalsh@segala.com on 2006-07-04)
15. RE: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from paulwalsh@segala.com on 2006-07-04)
16. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from srowen@google.com on 2006-07-03)
17. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from chaals@opera.com on 2006-07-03)
18. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from chaals@opera.com on 2006-07-03)
19. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from chaals@opera.com on 2006-07-02)
20. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from srowen@google.com on 2006-07-02)
21. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from andrea@trasatti.it on 2006-06-29)
22. [minutes] Thursday June 15 teleconf (from dom@w3.org on 2006-06-15)
23. RE: [minutes] Thursday June 15 teleconf (from paulwalsh@segala.com on 2006-06-15)
24. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from chaals@opera.com on 2006-05-13)
25. RE: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from k.scheppe@t-online.net on 2006-04-20)
26. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com on 2006-04-20)
27. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from parcher@icra.org on 2006-04-20)
28. RE: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from paulwalsh@segala.com on 2006-04-20)
29. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from andres.padillafuentes@telefonica.es on 2006-04-20)
30. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from parcher@icra.org on 2006-04-20)
31. Re: ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from srowen@google.com on 2006-04-20)
32. ISSUE-113: Support claims of partial conformance? (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2006-04-19)

Related notes:

Display change log