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

Re: Comments on WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130

From: Timur Mehrvarz <timur.mehrvarz@web.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:44:28 +0100
Message-Id: <272A3BF9-A153-43CB-96BA-AC5982892463@web.de>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
To: Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>

It is good idea to educate authors about the advantages of XML  
conformant content. It is also good, for mobile phones (and desktop  
GUI applications) to be rather forgiving about possible document  
structure issues. In particular, when document viewing apps deal with  
remote documents. For the Web to evolve and become more mobile  
friendly, is also a good thing.

On 06.03.2007, at 14:11, Kai Hendry wrote:

> I amusingly discovered this by trying out http://ready.mobi/ on  
> some of
> my mobile pages I wrote for my thesis http://iki.fi/hendry/msc.pdf  
> a few
> years ago. They scored fair.
> Though has anyone tried http://ready.mobi on http://ready.mobi?  :)
> I like how ready.mobi gives suggestions for .mobi domains to squat. I
> can't make this stuff up!
> I see you're trying to create some sort of Mobile Web content  
> validation
> scheme.
> First off, why the application/xhtml+xml? Do you have any idea  
> about the
> problems with this? When will you see the light with HTML?
> http://simon.html5.org/articles/mobile-results
> I would love to know of a single mobile phone sporting a conforming  
> processor. :)
> Why not support text/plain in CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT? :)
> PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT size is slowly becoming a less of an issue, it's more
> latency with mobiles. Can't you see you're writing a document  
> doomed to
> be become obsolete?
> Many issues here (SCROLLING, POP_UPS etc.) could be handled by a smart
> UA (and proxy esp for imgs). Telling authors they can't have tables  
> more
> that 2x2 seems a little daft. You will risk content developers  
> creating
> separate mobile device targeted Web pages.  Is that what you want  
> to see
> happen?
> So many of these failures could be warnings IMO, in order not to scare
> content creators.
> Anyway it would be good if some mobile developing hints were just
> implemented by a normal W3C HTML validator like http:// 
> validator.w3.org/
> or Unicorn. Anyone working on that? Banging out this bureaucratic
> document "W3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0" seems a waste of time and
> resources.
> You need to evolve faster.
> Best wishes,
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 08:44:36 UTC

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