Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Other specs in this tool Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group's Issue tracker
In the table below, red is in the WG decision column indicates that the Working Group didn't agree with the comment, green indicates that a it agreed with it, and yellow reflects an in-between situation.
In the "Commentor reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the request for feedback.
Commentor | Comment | Working Group decision | Commentor reply |
---|---|---|---|
LC-2412
David Campbell <dcampbell@owasp.org> (archived comment) |
|
The group partially agrees with the comment. The Mobile Web Application Best Practices is explicitly scoped to best practices that have some specific impact on the mobile context: http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/#mobile-context The Working Group acknowledges that most "desktop" security-related best practices also apply to mobile devices and updated the introduction text of the "Security and Privacy" section to reflect that the one best practice listed in that section is definitely not the end of it. The Working Group has also decided to reference the OWASP TOP 10 work as example of usual security measures in this text. See updated text in latest editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/latest#bp-security The group does not feel it has the expertise to review and select other best practices related to security and decided against adding more best practices to the section. A future version of the best practices should probably include a more comprehensive set of best practices related to security. The best practice listed in this category was chosen on the grounds that it was the most obvious client-side security hole to bridge in a mobile Web application that might have access to personal information. In particular, a mobile Widget could perhaps be allowed to send SMS or make phone calls while the device is connected to an "untrusted" public Wifi connection, thus enabling potential man-in-the-middle attacks. |
tocheck |
LC-2407
Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> (archived comment) |
|
The group agrees with the comment, and added a link to the SMS URI scheme together with a reference to RFC5724. The text includes a warning for developers about potential discrepancies in implementations at this stage. See updated text in latest editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20100901#bp-interaction-uri-schemes |
yes |
LC-2408
Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> (archived comment) |
|
The group partially agrees with the comment and decided to add a reminder that informational image require alternative text (whereas decorative images don't). | yes |
LC-2413
Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> (archived comment) |
|
The group partially agrees with the comment. The text in 3.5.3.1 has been updated as suggested. However, the group decided to keep "e.g. from link to link" in 3.5.3.2 on the grounds that it is a typical example of how such mobile browsers behave on simple Web pages. See updated text in latest editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/latest#bp-presentation-interaction |
yes |
LC-2414
Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> (archived comment) |
|
The group partially agrees with the comment. While it does not feel that a fourth type of interaction method needs to be added to the list of the main interaction methods so far, it acknowledges the importance of mentioning other types of interaction methods - including assistive technology and voice controlled applications - and updated the text consequently. The text also emphasizes that new interaction methods may emerge and become prevalent in the future. See updated text in the latest editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/latest#bp-presentation-interaction |
yes |
LC-2415
Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> (archived comment) |
|
The group agrees with the comment. The text was updated to mention "the physical size of a fingertip". See updated in latest editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/latest#bp-presentation-interaction |
yes |
LC-2416
Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> (archived comment) |
|
Following the resolution of Comment 2 (LC-2414), the group partially agrees with the comment and added a reference to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 as an example of available guidelines and best practices to address other types of interaction methods. See updated text in latest editor's draft: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/latest#bp-presentation-interaction While the Mobile Web Application Best Practices specification encourages tool developers to read the document, the main audience of the specification is Web application developers. As such, the text does not reference the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines. |
yes |