[Commentor] LC-346 Ville Karinen [Comment] Hello all, i remember there was some discussion whether MWBP promotes One Web or not, but in any case, i guess one goal of the *document* is to explain different kind of approaches or strategies how Web can be served for/accessed via mobile device. "The primary goal is to improve the user experience of the Web when accessed from such devices." However, it seems that the document is concentrating mainly on authoring process. As we can change the existing Web very slowly, it would be informative for non-mobile Web experts to illustrate already existing Web to Mobile adaptation processes, which are based on proxy based conversion. These conversion proxies provide the most widest Web to Mobile resource today. Here are some examples which kind of proxies i mean: WEB TO MOBILE Google's quite new HTML -> XHTML MP converter: MWBP document (WAI) conversion as an example. This converter can handle even forms. (Opera Software MIDP browser based on proxy adaptation. This combination enhances site and browser usability) HTML-> WML conversion (handles forms also) Maybe it should explained more clearly, why WAI guidelines - for example - do not cater mobile devices enough. In my opinion, different kind of Web to Mobile proxies should be studied in the future working groups - especially with content conforming relevant (and existing) WAI guidelines. It is said, that the mobile handset can be the only Web device for many users in the third world. That is why it is important to note, that conversion proxies might be someties the only way to get information from the Web. Kind Regards, Mr. Ville Karinen Student (Agr. & For.) [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] 
As stated in the "Classes of products" section [2], we're only dealing with "content as it gets delivered to a Web user agent". The way it is authored, adapted or proxied along the delivery chain is thus out of scope for our document, although we briefly explain where content adaptation fits in there [3]. Furthermore, a W3C Technical Report would not be the right place to present vendor-specific solutions for content adaptation. Nevertheless, the Techniques the Working Group has started to work on will present a set of technical advices regarding how to put the best practices in application; as these techniques will be open for contributions, maybe could you then suggest something along the lines of your email message? In the meantime, is there a way to rephrase your comment in a way that would fit in the scope of our best practices? Thank you very much for the time you took to review and comment on the document. Dom 1. link 2. link 3. link