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

Re: LC comments [20070130]

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:44:02 -0400
Message-ID: <e920a71c0703122144j79297597o5242b6342f6d89fe@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Micah Dubinko" <mdubinko@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Thanks, I will add all of these comments to our list of items to
review, but I think I can give a couple replies here that nobody would
disagree with:

On 3/12/07, Micah Dubinko <mdubinko@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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"?

Meaning content that would pass the mobileOK Basic tests.

> 3.4 CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT
>
> 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?

Yes, WML is not covered. I don't think anyone thinks WML best
practices are bad idea, just a separate thing, and the question is
whether to go back and write WML best practices or focus on trying to
keep XHTML best practices up to date.

> 3.17 PAGE_TITLE (partial)
>
> If <title> is missing, the document is invalid. So redundant w/ VALID_MARKUP

True, the theory was to go ahead and have a technically redundant test
to call out this error, since there's a whole best practice explicitly
about it.
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 04:44:11 GMT

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