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

Re: [mobileOK] i18n comment: encoding="ISO639"

From: <mike@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:11:54 +0000
To: <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org,public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1HwKaY-0002dV-DR@wiggum.w3.org>

 Dear <ishida@w3.org>,

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.


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

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/20070321154038.C35994F10A@homer.w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130/


> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130/
> Comment 3
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0703-mobileok/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Owner: RI
> Location in reviewed document:
> Comment: 
> [[If character encoding is specified in more than one way, and not all
> values are the same, FAIL]]
> I'm not personally familiar with transcoding scenarios, but I've heard
> people often quoting them as justification for using the HTTP header to
> declare encodings and for the HTTP declaration to have higher precedence
> in HTML than the in-document declarations. As I understand it, the
> rationale is that a transcoding server can change the encoding of the
> document as it passes through, but doesn't change in the internal
> encoding declaration. Since HTTP declarations beat in-document
> declarations, this is supposed to be OK. I've also heard that this kind
> of thing happens particularly when serving documents to mobile devices.
> If this is true, then I guess there must be occasions when it is
> permissible for the HTTP header declaration to be different from the
> other two?

Working Group Resolution:
Transcoding and adaptation are orthogonal questions. mobileOK is concerned
with content delivered to a device, regardless of how it was created.
Transcoders that behave in this way may well cause a resource to fail
mobileOK tests.

Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 16:12:06 UTC

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