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

Re: RE: F2F demo: html / xhtml namespace

From: <mike@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:51:26 +0000
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org,"Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "public-mobileok-checker" <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1IbebG-0007Nr-Oo@wiggum.w3.org>


 Dear Jo Rabin ,

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/C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B44841A6@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/


=====

Your comment on 3.4 CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT and VALID_MARKUP:
> I'm just catching up on this thread:
> 
> The reason the mobileOK doc says nothing about the namespace is that
> Dom said ages ago (and consistently with his previous message on this
> thread) that the DTD has the value as FIXED. Consequently, failing if
> the namespace is absent not right. 
> 
> The specs all say that the namespace declaration should be present. So
> I suggest we go back, amend the mobileOK doc, and FAIL if a namespace
> declaration is not present on the html element. 
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-mobileok-
> > checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roland G├╝lle
> > Sent: 25 July 2007 18:52
> > To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> > Cc: Sean Owen; public-mobileok-checker
> > Subject: Re: F2F demo: html / xhtml namespace
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > In terms of the checker, I think this means we should default a
> root
> > > element whose name is "html" and has no defined namespace to be in
> the
> > > XHTML namespace (so that we can parse is as if it was XHTML),
> while
> > > throwing an error to the user - I thought there was a specific
> error
> > > triggered in mobileOK for this, but I don't see it in there in a
> quick
> > > read.
> > +1 to your proposed solution and found also nothing about XHTML
> > namespaces in the mobileOK basic doc.
> > 
> >   roland
> > 
> > 
> >


Working Group Resolution:
Amend CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT and VALID_MARKUP to FAIL if the xhtml
namespace is not present on the html element.

----
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 15:51:38 GMT

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