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: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:26:39 +0200
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20070607191900.03880150@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: mike@w3.org
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Dear Michael Smith,

At 16:14 4/06/2007, mike@w3.org wrote:
>  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.

I agree with the resolution.


>----
>
>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.

I agree with the resolution.

Best regards,

Christophe


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2007 17:40:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 June 2012 12:13:30 GMT