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

Re: mobileOK Basic, overly restrictive tests (was: Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 (scripting, fallback, ...))

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:12:32 +0200
To: "Simon Pieters" <zcorpan@gmail.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ttw5y6e7wxe0ny@widsith.lan>

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:35:36 +0200, Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>  

> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:21:16 +0200, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>> I think that's an interesting point, but the way it's phrased
>> doesn't help me track the status of it as well as I'd like.
>> In stead of "The tests warn for things..." could you pick one
>> or two specific bits of text from the mobileOK tests document
>> that you disagree with?
> Ok.
>     3.15 OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT (partial)

>     If a script element is present, warn
> For authors who want to comply with mobileOK (i.e., make the mobileOK  
> validator not emit any warnings or errors)

Warn is not a fail. If what you do results in a warn, you may or may not  
be mobileOK. If you want to have an automatic checker not warn about  
anything, that's about your own priorities, not about mobileOK (likewise  
if you accept any kind of warning, that's not very clever either).

>     3.18 POP_UPS
> AIUI, mobiles don't support popups at all.

This is untrue. Some do.



   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com    Catch up: Speed Dial   http://opera.com
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:12:58 UTC

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