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

Re: MobileOK comments

From: <mike@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:42:25 +0000
To: Jon Ribbens <ertwg@sitemorse.com>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org,public-wai-ert@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IbeSX-0006zy-Ao@wiggum.w3.org>

 Dear Jon Ribbens ,

The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the W3C mobileOK Basic
Tests 1.0 (2nd Last Call) published on 25 May 2007. Thank you for having
taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 19 October 2007. In case of disagreement, you are requested to
provide a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working
Group. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the
opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the
Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in the
W3C Recommendation Track.


For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
Michael(tm) Smith
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/20070613182948.GZ2531@snowy.squish.net
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/


Your comment on 2.3.8 Visible Linked Resources:
> | 2.3.8 Visible Linked Resources
> | ...
> | 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.
> I think that's probably meant to say 'forms with method *post*'.
> Either way, it doesn't make sense in context as-is.

Working Group Resolution:
That is a typo, thanks for pointing it out.


Your comment on 3.1 AUTO_REFRESH (partial) and REDIRECTION:
> | 3.1 AUTO_REFRESH (partial) and REDIRECTION
> This section does not say what to do if no URL is specified in the
> meta content. In fact, the "Mobile Web Best Practices" document itself
> seems confused as to how the 'refresh' header works. The header
> contains a time-delay in seconds, and an optional URL. The "Mobile"
> documents seem to think it just contains a URL.

Working Group Resolution:
'URI specified in the content attribute' should not be read to imply it is
the sole content of the attribute. We will clarify along the lines of 'If
the URI specified as part of  the content attribute is not the current
resource's URI...'


Your comment on 3.2 CACHING:
> | 3,2 CACHING
> | ...
> | If no meta http-equiv  element is present, referring to those
> |        headers, FAIL
> | warn, and continue the test using the value from the meta content
> |        attribute.
> The last line above is missing something, probably an "Else," at the
> beginning.
> I am not sure that the fact that this section is mandating warnings
> whenever content is specified as uncacheable is a good idea. Even if
> it is, it should be made explicitly clear that that is the intent
> - especially for example on the "Pragma" header, where people might
> think that it is the Pragma header itself which is being warned about.

Working Group Resolution:
Reworded to work around this.


> | ...
> | HTTP Content-Type headre
> |   application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8"
> Extraneous " at the end of the line.

Working Group Resolution:
That is a typo, thanks for pointing it out.

Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 15:42:53 UTC

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