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

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

From: Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:44:38 +0000
To: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070307114436.GB28525@iki.fi>

On 2007-03-07T10:44+0900 Sean Owen wrote:
> >I would love to know of a single mobile phone sporting a conforming XML
> >processor. :)
> You are suggesting that application/xhtml+xml not be mentioned at all?
> mobileOK Basic Tests do define tests that accept several MIME types
> including text/html.

I was suggesting that we focus on HTML, which most content gets written
in anyway. Going down this XHTML route is going nowhere except
confusion. Well unless W3C starts to define error handling as Anne
suggests. That would be far more sensible and constructive than this
MobileOK document.

> >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?
> Are you suggesting that there is no value in making smaller pages, or
> just that the limit suggested here is too low? if you think networks
> around the world are fast enough that a 10K page is virtually the same
> as 100K, then yes this is a point worth considering.

Wireless networks are getting faster. Though I think it is sensible to
warn content creators their page is too large (10K seems fine, or
perhaps 5K??). I've done tests with series 40 Nokia browsers and I
distantly remembering them not being able to handle much more than 5K.
Has anyone done some research about the UAs out there? Esp. with big
markets like China&India?

Though most seasoned Web developers already know to keep their pages
trim.  It's common sense. :)

> If you mean, do the best practices suggest that significantly
> different markup be served to mobile phones, I think the answer is
> yes. The best practices even go so far as to say don't use tables!
> That's very different than a desktop web page.

Well then you are creating two worlds. One world for the desktop and one
for the mobile. You are encouraging a lot of redundancy and waste, when
one device independent Web page can suffice. :(

> To be clear, you are suggesting that SCROLLING and POP_UPS are not
> necessary because most UAs are smart enough to do the right thing? and

UAs can do the right thing. I am sure Opera has logic for this already.

> you are saying that it's unwise to recommend best practices that would
> mean you can't serve a desktop page to a mobile client?

I don't understand you here. For my opinion how the Web should work
refer to my earlier device independent paragraph.

> Of course! you may wish to join public-mobileok-checker@w3.org to
> discuss the actual implementation of the basic tests 1.0. There is
> also a rough draft of such an implementation at
> http://validator.w3.org/mobile .

Oh no, not another list! :) Please don't create more lists. I've ranted
about this already:
http://natalian.org/archives/2007/03/06/w3c-drops-the-mobile/

It makes it really difficult to keep tabs are you guys otherwise! And as
I suggested before, please just slap on these mobile warnings on the
main HTML validator and allow mobiles to join the Web as equal citizens.
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:44:44 GMT

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