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

Re: Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

From: <mike@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:13:02 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org,public-bpwg-comments@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1IcufW-00047G-Av@wiggum.w3.org>


 Dear Anne van Kesteren ,

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/op.ttuno8tu64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/


=====

Your comment on 2.3.2 HTTP Request:
> > One sub-point I'd like to make is that it's not wrong for the user
> > agent to say nothing about what it accepts. It's also not wrong to
> > list everything it accepts every time, according to HTTP. If a
> request
> > for a CSS file retrieves a text/html document, well, sounds like the
> > site is quite broken. This is not a user agent problem.
> 
> I think I interpret this rather different from you. That is, the user
> agent indicates which types it supports for a particular request. So if
> it
> says text/html when it fetches a style sheet it indicates it can
> process
> text/html as a style sheet for the current page. Or if it fetches an
> image
> that it can show text/html resources as images.


Working Group Resolution:
We don't agree that the HTTP RFC requires this interpretation. We believe
that if a user agent includes an accept header that specifies text/css in
a request, that is an indication not that text/css is an acceptable
response for an image but that it can process text/css in some
circumstances. In general the User Agent does not know what type of
resource to anticipate when it makes a request. It is a special case when
it does, as a result in this case of making a retrieval linked to a
specific element in a resource already retrieved.

----

Your comment on 2.3.2 HTTP Request:
> On another point, Content-Type of the response for both image and style 
> 
> sheet requests is simply ignored. The image type is determined through 
> 
> sniffing and in case of a linked style sheet it is simply parsed as
> CSS.  
> This is more or less required for user agents if they want to support
> web  
> pages out there.


Working Group Resolution:
We accept that real browsers have to adopt many heuristics and take a
pragmatic approach. The intention of mobileOK Basic is to point out to
content providers that mislabeling the content is an error. We certainly
do not endorse the mislabeling.

----
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 03:13:20 GMT

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