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

LC comments [20070130]

From: Micah Dubinko <mdubinko@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <858390.19311.qm@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Some non-comprehensive comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130/

These personal observations should not be taken as comments by my employer.

Overall impression

The overall impression the tests give me is that, given a non-whitelisted device, the safer alternative is to exclude all CSS. This seems like the wrong impression to give mobile developers.

1.2 Applicability

"The tests apply to a URI. Passing the tests means that under the right circumstances, resolving a URI will retrieve conformant content"

What is "conformant content"?


Is the intent that all WML content is excluded from the possibility of being mobileOK? In some regions, WML devices still represent the majority of mobile  UAs. To ask another way, it the intent of these tests to specifically exclude testable guidelines for WML?


Would it make sense to fail on > 1 transparent image (instead of going by size)? Having 20 2px by 2xp images is still bad.


Should this mention non-200 responses? 404, 500, etc..? In the case where the linked resource is a form submit with method="post", a GET request might properly fail.


Should the 'outline' properies, which work much like the 'border' properties, be mentioned here?


10k is extremely limited, and dates the document. What are the plans for updates?

3.17 PAGE_TITLE (partial)

If <title> is missing, the document is invalid. So redundant w/ VALID_MARKUP
Thanks! -m

Learn XForms today!  http://xformsinstitute.com

Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 12:49:38 UTC

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