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

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

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:59:09 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: mike@w3.org, <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org

I have to very strongly agree with what Richard wrote.

What's even more, there is no reason for the Mobile Web Best
Practices to change basic Web standards. Documents that are
standard-conforming according to HTTP, HTML, and so on shouldn't
suddenly be met with FAIRure unless there is a really good reason
to do so (which I can't se here at all).

Regards,    Martin.

At 01:11 07/06/08, mike@w3.org wrote:
> 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.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 07:00:05 UTC

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