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

Re: mOK response proposal

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:56:07 -0400
Message-ID: <e920a71c0706220956x37aec096xfe1fd6dcfe9eee70@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org, public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

The draft just says:

"Note that forms with method get are permissible in documents under
test, but must not be checked in case posting caused unwanted side
effects such as the addition of unwanted records to a database."

Yes we have not said exactly how to handle a form. This at least needs
clarification. I had imagined that one would do whatever a browser
does if you were to merely submit the form. A parameter would be
created for every input/textarea, and those with a value in the
"value" attribute (or a body, in the case of textarea), would take on
that value.

I think it deserves a little more discussion whether it's worthwhile
to specify that tests should even bother with forms at all. I suppose
the idea is test everything you reasonably can.

Like all comments, I'll add these to our list of last call comments
for an "official" reply.


On 6/22/07, Jon Ribbens <ertwg@sitemorse.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:52:41PM +0200, Johannes Koch wrote:
> > apart from the GET vs. POST typo issue, Jon mentioned:
> >
> > >Well, theoretically since GET is idempotent you can safely try, for
> > >example, simply submitting the form with its default values.
> >
> > I may have missed it, but does the mobileOK draft describe how to handle
> > GET forms? Only use default values?
> It's very vague. 'Use default values' is my own opinion (and is what
> we do in the web-checking tool our company provides). Section 2.3.8
> might possibly be intended to mean that the URL in the 'action'
> attribute should be taken and fetched unchanged with no form parameters
> at all, but that would be highly inadvisable (there is essentially no
> other circumstance, other than a mobileOK test, where that URL would
> be requested).
> I feel that clarification of this is quite important.
> I have CC'ed this message to public-bpwg-comments, as today is
> apparently the last day for comments.
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 16:56:18 UTC

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