Re: Comments on mobileOK Basic 20070928 draft ( LC-1896 LC-1897 LC-1898 LC-1899 LC-1900 LC-1901 LC-1902 LC-1903 LC-1904 LC-1905 LC-1906 LC-1907 LC-1908 LC-1909)

Thanks for dealing with my comments. I agree with your resolutions apart 
from the following two.

mike@w3.org schrieb:
> =====
> Your comment on 2.4.3 HTTP Response:
>> * The algorithm does specify whether tests have to be carried out on 
>> responses with 3xx, 401, 404, 407 and 5xx status codes. Is does _not_ 
>> specify whether tests have to be carried out on responses with 1xx, 2xx
>>
>> and 4xx (other than 401, 404 and 407).
>>
>> It does specifiy whether the resource size/count totals have to be 
>> updated for 3xx, 401, 407 status codes. Is does _not_ specify whether 
>> the resource size/count totals have to be updated for 1xx, 2xx, 4xx 
>> (other than 401 and 407) and 5xx status codes.
> 
> 
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1897):
> Yes, we will clarify that tests should proceed on 1xx (weird as that is)
> or 2xx responses. The last lines of this section indicate that most 4xx
> and 5xx responses will FAIL.

The resolution is about my first issue (carrying out further tests). Is 
there another resolution about the second issue (updating the resource 
size/count totals)?

> ----
> 
> Your comment on 2.4.7 Linked Resources:
>> * "GET" -> "get"
>> Or is it meant case-insensitively?
> 
> 
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1900):
> The method is not case-sensitive, yes. I will clarify.

The HTTP method itself is not case-sensitive, but the attribute value in 
XHTML whatever version is. HTML OTOH is not case-sensitive. So you may 
want to keep "GET" case-insensitive. In any case I would prefer a 
lower-case "get", as you seem to also want XHTML (Basic/Mobile) compliance.

-- 
Johannes Koch
BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 11:51:54 UTC