Archives for: February 2010
2010-02-26
Minutes and Resolutions 2010-02-24
- Reviewed Opera's message on
image-fitandimage-position: - Resolved: Replaced elements are always clipped to the content box.
- Resolved: Unqualified references to a box in the image-fit/position definitions should be "content box".
- Resolved: Whether
image-fitandimage-positioninherit should match the inheritance behavior of SVG'spreserveAspectRatioattribute. - Resolved: The proposal for a new
autovalue toimage-fitis not accepted. - Briefly discussed animation fill modes and timing functions; further discussion deferred until later.
2010-02-24
W3C Workshop on Conversational Applications
A call has gone out for a Workshop on Conversational Applications — Use Cases and Requirements for New Models of Human Language to Support Mobile Conversational Systems, 18-19 June 2010, Hosted by Openstream, NJ, US
Scope of the Workshop Submissions must describe (1) requirements and use cases for improving W3C standards for conversational interaction and (2) how the use cases justify one or more of these topics:
- Formal notations for representing grammar in: Syntax, Morphology, Phonology, Prosodics
- Engine standards for improvement in processing: Syntax, Morphology, Phonology, Lexicography
- Lexicography standards for: parts-of-speech, grammatical features and polysemy
- Formal semantic representation of human language including: verbal tense, aspect, valency, plurality, pronouns, adverbs, etc.
- Efficient data structures for binary representation and passing of: parse trees, alternate lexical/morphologic analysis, alternate phonologic analysis
- Other suggested areas or improvements for standards based conversational systems development
Experts in the following technology areas would be welcome.
- computational linguistics
- speech prosody
- syntax
- internationalization
- mobile applications
- MMI/voice technology
For more information see http://www.w3.org/2010/02/convapps/cfp.html
2010-02-23
Second Web Compatibility Test for Mobile Browsers
The Mobile Web Test Suites Working Group has just released a brand new Web Compatibility Test for Mobile Browsers.
Based on the same idea of evaluating support of a number of Web technologies at a glance as in the first Web Compatibility Test published in July 2008, this second version features a number of more recent technologies that promise to make Web browsers more powerful, in particular on mobile devices.
2010-02-22
Meetings This Week
A few weeks ago, the IG started a set of parallel task force project groups. Here's what's on the calendar for this week:
Wednesday, 24 Feb, 8am ET Data Management
- Topic TBD
Thursday, 25 Feb, 10am ET Linked Data Outreach
- Brainstorm on technical scope: what are the pressing technical issues for government linked data, and what guidance can we provide?
Friday, 26 Feb, 9am ET Linked Data Demo
- Topic TBD
Friday, 26 Feb, 3pm ET Social Media
- Review and determine the top 5 essential best practice for use of Social Media by government.
The IG and the other project groups are not scheduled to meet this week.
These groups are just getting started, so if you want some say in their direction (and possibly eternal glory), now is a good time to get involved.
New translations into Romanian
Thanks to Sorin Velescu, the following article has been translated into Romanian.
Sfaturi utile de internationalizare pentru Web (Internationalization Quick Tips for the Web)
[search keys: article-quicktips
2010-02-21
RIF Production Rules Dialect Revised; Last Call for Comments
During the implementation phase of the Rule Interchange Format (RIF), the Working Group discovered a problem with the design of the Production Rules Dialect. This problem is addressed with a new Last Call Working Draft that changes the way actions are handled to more closely match existing production rule engines. Please send comments and RIF implementation reports to public-rif-comments@w3.org.
2010-02-19
Talk slides: Flarenet Forum
On 11th February Richard Ishida gave a talk entitled Language Tagging using the New RFC 5646 at the FlaReNet Forum 2010 n Barcelona, Spain.
The talk proposed that interoperability will be served best by widening the adoption of the language tags specified by BCP 47, and to that end reviewed the various types of subtag described by the RFC 5646 syntax, and looked at some of the choices that need to be made when selecting subtags.
2010-02-18
New translation into French
Thanks to the French Translation Team, Trusted Translations Inc., the following article has been translated into French.
Création de pages SVG Tiny en arabe, hébreu et autres scripts lus de droite à gauche (Creating SVG Tiny Pages in Arabic, Hebrew and other Right-to-Left Scripts)
[search keys: tutorial-svg-tiny-bidi
New translations into Spanish
Thanks to the Spanish Translation Team, Spanish Translation US, the following articles have been translated into Spanish.
Selección de una etiqueta de idioma (Choosing a Language Tag)
Problemas de visualización provocados por BOM en UTF-8 (Display problems caused by the UTF-8 BOM)
Caracteres y glifos faltantes (Missing characters and glyphs)
[search keys: qa-choosing-language-tags qa-utf8-bom article-o-misscharglyph
2010-02-17
Minutes and Resolutions 2010-02-17
- Discussed CSS2.1 test suite status.
- Discussed Yves' comment about background shorthand syntax for background-size. fantasai to write up proposal for using
asinstead of/to differentiate background-size from background position in the shorthand. - Discussed new API for computedStyle values. People seem happy in general with the direction Anne is going in his drafts.
- Discussed standardizing serialization of computedStyle values. Consensus is that having a spec for serialization is a good idea, although converging existing behavior to spec may be difficult and there is no consensus on whether we should push for converging existing implementations (due to backwards-compat concerns; this has the potential to break lots of scripts).
- Reviewed some new information about scientific notation in CSS.
- Started (but did not finish) discussion on image-fit issues recently raised on www-style by the SVG WG.
2010-02-15
Minutes of January 18 teleconference published
The MW4D IG held its 32snd teleconference on January 18 2010.
The approved minutes are available at http://www.w3.org/2010/01/18-mw4d-minutes.html
Previous meeting minutes are available from the teleconference archives
2010-02-12
Content Transformation Guidelines ready for review
The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group published a Last Call Working Draft of the Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies yesterday.
To paraphrase the abstract, the document provides guidance to Content Transformation proxies as to whether and how to transform Web content. It is scoped to mobile networks where the problem originated. The topic of content transformation done right in the middle between the content provider and the final user is contentious (at best): proxies have the potential to enable browsing "more of" the Web from any mobile device; but they can also disrupt the operation of mobile-friendly sites, eavesdrop in communications that they are not quite supposed to listen to, and more importantly users and content providers cannot easily control the proxies.
The document has already triggered lots of reaction and discussion both within and outside of the group. The group keeps on bringing substantive changes to the guidelines based on the feedback it receives. Although the whole process takes time, this is a very good thing!
Among other changes, the third Last Call Working Draft stresses out in its Purpose section that this document is not expected to be the last word on this topic. The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group is not chartered to create new technology, and there is currently no existing or widely deployed technology that can be used e.g. by a content provider to advertise its position and expectations with regards to content transformation.
That said, the group thinks the document is pretty useful on a short-to-medium-term basis and believes it has addressed all the comments it received on the previous last call. Whether you provided feedback in the past or not (thanks again if you did!), the group invites you to review the document once again. The Status of This Document section explains how to send feedback.
The Last Call review period ends on 11 March 2010. Let the group know if you need more time to review the document!
2010-02-11
Last Call of the Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies published
The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group published today a third Last Call Working Draft of Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies 1.0.
This document provides guidance to Content Transformation proxies as to whether and how to transform Web content. This third Last Call version incorporates changes made in response to comments on the second Last Call. The Working Group invites the community of Mobile Web developers to comment on this document through 11 March 2010. Please follow the instructions detailed in the Status of This Document section to provide feedback.
Call for Implementations of the Mobile Web Application Best Practices
The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group invites implementation of the W3C Candidate Recommendation of Mobile Web Application Best Practices.
The goal of this document is to aid the development of rich and dynamic mobile Web applications. It collects the most relevant engineering practices, promoting those that enable a better user experience and warning against those that are considered harmful. W3C invites implementers to complete an implementation report template through 15 April 2010.
Mobile Web Application Best Practices is a Candidate Recommendation
The Mobile Web Application Best Practices document has just been published as a W3C Candidate Recommendation. This publication means the working group believes that the document is stable and now encourages everyone to implement the Best Practices.
Are you developing Web applications that take into account some of the specificities of the mobile world and implement one or more of the Best Practices in this document? If yes, we need your implementation feedback! Please consider helping us by following the instructions in the implementation report template and tell us about your great Web applications!
The 35 Best Practices cover a wide range of use cases, grouped in 6 categories in the specification:
- Application Data: appropriate technologies and techniques to use for managing a Web application's data.
- Security and Privacy: use trusted information, and protect all personally identifiable information.
- User Awareness and Control: allow the user to control application behaviour that might not otherwise be apparent.
- Conservative use of resources: minimize use of device memory, processor power, and network bandwidth.
- User Experience: special consideration to improve the user experience, given the additional complexities of interacting with an application on a mobile device.
- Handling Variation in the Delivery Context: adapt to known or discoverable properties of the Delivery Context by adjusting the content, navigation or page flow.
Note that you do not need to implement a large number of Best Practices to provide feedback. The Best Practices are fairly independent one from another and the group expects Web applications to implement one, two, or a few Best Practices at a time.
Once we are able to produce an implementation report with evidence that the Best Practices are used in practice, the document should be able to exit the Candidate Recommendation phase and move forward on its way to a final W3C Recommendation.
Best Practices to make your Web application mobile
The Mobile Web Application Best Practices was published as a W3C Candidate Recommendation yesterday. This means the specification is believed to be stable and that the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group now invites everyone to implement the Best Practices... and report on their implementations!
Here is a little guide to providing implementation feedback, in the form of an Infrequently Asked Questions list:
- How do I provide feedback?
- Simply follow the instructions of the implementation report template.
- Why provide an implementation report?
- Coz' we need it, of course! More seriously, the Best Practices should reflect already existing engineering practices or practices that will soon become prevalent. The specification cannot become a true standard if the working group cannot gather evidence that this is the case.
- Who can provide an implementation report?
- Anyone. The working group will obviously start by looking at its own participants to gather implementation feedback, but if you have developed a Web application that follows some of the Best Practices, you're most welcome!
- What is a Web application?
- The specification contains a definition of the notion of Web Application. Basically, it is a regular Web site comprised of (X)HTML and CSS with some level of locally executable elements of interactivity (think Javascript) and persistent state. The Web application does not need to be executed within the context of a Web browser: so-called Widgets match the definition.
- Does the Web application need to be mobile?
- Not per se, but note that each Best Practice has some mobile twist. If you find yourself having implemented one of the Best Practices described in the document without having thought about mobile, congratulations, your application has at least some level of mobile-friendliness! Feel free to report and include the reason why you implemented the Best Practice in the first place.
- Does the Web application need to implement all of the Best Practices?
- Not at all. The Mobile Web Application Best Practices are fairly independent one from another. We do not expect applications to implement more than a handful of them each time. You can submit a report as soon as your Web application implements one of the Best Practices.
- Are there Web applications that should not be reported?
- Hardly any one, but note that Web applications created solely to demonstrate the Best Practices do not count as valid implementations of the Best Practices.
Feel free to send a comment or to send me an email if you would like to provide implementation feedback and have some further questions.
2010-02-10
Minutes and Resolutions 2010-02-10
- CSS2.1 testing:
- Reftest documentation added to testing wiki
- Build scripts still need a rehaul
- Next F2F March 29-31. Agenda
- Resolved: Richard Ishida will be editor of CSS Ruby spec.
- Resolved: CSSWG has no problem with deprecating DOMActivate
- Discussed scientific notation again, because apparently SVG already uses it. Concerns include:
- Confusion about where exactly SVG allows scientific notation and in which versions this is allowed.
- Allowing it in CSS would require changing the core grammar, which is supposed to remain stable.
- Not allowing it in CSS in general but allowing it in SVG-based CSS would require inconsistent parsing rules.
- Allowing it would create a new syntax for all CSS properties that accept numbers and lengths that will be accepted by newer implementations but rejected by older implementations. This has backwards-compat and browser-hack implications.
- Whether overall usability is increased or decreased by introducing scientific notation in CSS is debatable.
Date and place of the 'RDF Next Step' Workshop settled
A few weeks ago W3C announced the organization of an "RDF Next Steps" Workshop. At the time of the announcement the dates and the place of the Workshop were not settled yet.
They are now... The Workshop will indeed take place on the 26 and 27 of June, 2010, and hosted by the National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO), at Stanford University. Note that those dates are on the week-end after the SemTech2010 conference, held nearby in San Francisco.
The call for paper of the Workshop has been updated, and also includes details on the way of submitting position papers.
Update of the 'vCard in RDF' document
2010-02-09
Web Compatibility Test for Mobile Browsers Version 2
Last May 2009 the Mobile Web Test Suites Working Group (MWTS) volunteers were polishing up the Web Compatibility Test for Mobile Browsers(WCTMB) version one and thinking of a new test. Nine months later our next little baby is due, version two of the WCTMB.
In this fresh forward looking 2.0 test we hope to encourage key technologies that will make the mobile platform simply rock. Of course we have the usual suspects like AJAX support and canvas which were tested in the WCTMB v1 test too. However we gear up by checking for Geolocation support which is very relevant to mobile users and for various helpful offline technologies like application cache and Web storage. These offline technologies help the Web in areas where Internet may be unreliable, which is a lot of places on most mobile devices!
We also make a daring leap into the fray to ask for support of video and audio, which is quite demanding on a mobile device. We allow for all sorts of codecs, though midi files and animated gifs won't pass. :)
We also test for new input types, rich text editing and font face support which could be a workaround where phones have a poor font, for instance for a particular locale. No matter where you are from or what language you speak, we hope to entangle you in the Web with any device to hand.
So go and test your mobile with the new test and if your browser scores a 110% you are cheating.
Thank you and we welcome your feedback on our mailing list.
13:25:01, by Richard Ishida 
, 188 words, 53701 views 
Categories: Highlight, For review, w3cWebDesign
Article for review: Character encodings in HTML and CSS
Comments are being sought on this article prior to final release. Please send any comments to www-international@w3.org (subscribe). We expect to publish a final version in one to two weeks.
This is an update, in a temporary location, of the tutorial Character sets & encodings in XHTML, HTML and CSS. (Please be careful about bookmarking the location, since it is only temporary.)
A lot of new material was added, eg. related to the UTF-8 BOM, normalization, etc., and the material was rearranged significantly. The rearrangement was to downplay slightly the XHTML 1.0 issues, given that that is now only relevant to IE6, but also to help readers more quickly find information they need for the format they are dealing with.
The explicit distinction between XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1 with regard to MIME types was removed, since the XHTML2 WG is hopefully very close to issuing a PER that enables XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html.
The update adds information about HTML5.
Where a section corresponds to an article that has been updated, those updates were also migrated to this document.
[search keys: tutorial-char-enc]
Minutes and Resolutions 2010-02-03
- Discussed border-radius color transition issue. Seem to have (tentative) consensus that the gradient be recommended as currently, but that the location of the color stops also be defined.
Minutes and Resolutions 2010-01-27
- CSS2.1 Test Suite Alpha 1 being published today.
- Resolved: Move forward with joint CSS/SVG Task Force: arrange joint afternoon meeting at next F2F if possible, set up telecons, work on charter, etc.
- Resolved: Move August F2F to 23-25.
- Discussed px vs. pt thread. Proposal is to fix 96px per inch. Whether inches fixed to reality or pixels fixed to screen res / viewing distance may vary (print would match real inches, screens align with viewing distance and/or screen res).
2010-02-06
German Translation of the RDFa Primer
2010-02-02
RDFa Working Group launched
CSHALS Tutorial
Search
Categories
Mobile Web Test Suites Working Group blog
- Announcements (11)
- Opinions (1)
- Testing tools (2)
- Web Compatibility Test (7)
- Widgets testing (3)
Archives
- September 2011 (7)
- August 2011 (23)
- July 2011 (17)
- June 2011 (13)
- May 2011 (18)
- April 2011 (14)
- March 2011 (24)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (11)
- December 2010 (12)
- November 2010 (19)
- October 2010 (18)
- More...
Misc
XML Feeds
What is RSS?
Who's Online?
- Guest Users: 9
