W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Comments on W3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 January 2007

From: <mike@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:14:04 +0000
To: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1HvDJs-0006Md-TH@wiggum.w3.org>


 Dear Christophe Strobbe ,

The Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the W3C mobileOK Basic
Tests 1.0 published on 30 Jan 2007. Thank you for having taken the time to
review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 22 June 2007. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide
a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If
such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to
raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director
during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C
Recommendation Track.

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group,
Michael(tm) Smith
W3C Staff Contact

 1.
http://www.w3.org/mid/6.2.5.6.2.20070212182640.0292fd40@esat.kuleuven.be
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130/


=====

Your comment on 3.1 AUTO_REFRESH (partial) and REDIRECTION:
> Note that the if statements for the meta element and the HTTP refresh 
> header are different: one refers to "the current resources's URI", 
> while the second refers to "the current page". Shouldn't the same 
> wording be used in both cases?


Working Group Resolution:
Yes, thanks we will use the term URI.

----

Your comment on 3.4 CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT:
> People are aware of validators for HTML, XHTML and CSS, but how do 
> you check if an image is valid according to GIF89A or JPEG? Do image 
> editors check this or do they just check whether the images are "good 
> enough" for the editor? Could you provide pointers to tools that are 
> reliable "validators" for GIF89A and JPEG?


Working Group Resolution:
Suggested resolution is to provide a pointer to the normative references
for JPEG and GIF89A:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/itu-t81.pdf
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/GIF/spec-gif89a.txt
We will not recommend a specific validator or implementation of these
specs in mobileOK Basic, but, many such implementations do exist.

----
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 14:14:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC