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

Re: Re: mOK response proposal

From: <mike@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:51:26 +0000
To: Jon Ribbens <ertwg@sitemorse.com>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org,public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IbebG-0007NY-Ep@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:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070928/.

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.

Thanks,

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

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/20070622144947.GU2531@snowy.squish.net
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/


=====

Your comment on 2.3.8 Visible Linked Resources:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:52:41PM +0200, Johannes Koch wrote:
> > apart from the GET vs. POST typo issue, Jon mentioned:
> > 
> > >Well, theoretically since GET is idempotent you can safely try, for
> > >example, simply submitting the form with its default values.
> > 
> > I may have missed it, but does the mobileOK draft describe how to
> handle 
> > GET forms? Only use default values?
> 
> It's very vague. 'Use default values' is my own opinion (and is what
> we do in the web-checking tool our company provides). Section 2.3.8
> might possibly be intended to mean that the URL in the 'action'
> attribute should be taken and fetched unchanged with no form
> parameters
> at all, but that would be highly inadvisable (there is essentially no
> other circumstance, other than a mobileOK test, where that URL would
> be requested).
> 
> I feel that clarification of this is quite important.
> 
> I have CC'ed this message to public-bpwg-comments, as today is
> apparently the last day for comments.


Working Group Resolution:
We will change 2.3.8 to state more clearly how to submit forms - use empty
values where no default is supplied.

----
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 15:51:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 June 2012 12:13:31 GMT