W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Requirement for keeping the code valid after content transformation

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:23:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4896BC7E.5090902@w3.org>
To: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>
CC: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org

Hi Martin,

I thought I would let you know the result of the discussion regarding 
the comment you raised a few months ago.

We introduced the need to validate against an appropriate published 
grammar in the newly published Last Call Working Draft of the document:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/#sec-alteration-of-response

"The altered content SHOULD validate according to an appropriate 
published formal grammar;"

As noted above, we recently published a "Last Call" Working Draft of the 
Content Transformation Guidelines:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
... opening an other official public review period until September 16th. 
Feel free to get back to us with some further feedback!

Thanks,

Francois Daoust,
W3C Staff Contact,
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group.


Martin Kliehm wrote:
> 
> We used to deliver websites as valid XHTML with the xhtml+xml mime type. 
> However, some mobile carriers replace images with low quality images. If 
> you click on an image there's the option to load the original image. 
> That functionality is added with JavaScript. Now the JavaScript is 
> appended after the original code, i.e. after </html>, without CDATA 
> wraps. Of course that's a horrible thing and turns the page invalid. As 
> Firefox interprets pages with that mime type as XML, a yellow error page 
> appears instead of the intended (and valid) page. As a result 
> regrettably we had to switch back to text/html.
> 
> I can understand that providers like to "optimize" the mobile 
> experience. While users don't get informed or asked about the inferior 
> image quality, they might even benefit from faster loading times. But 
> I'd prefer if they kept their fingers from my valid code. Or if they 
> really need to rewrite or append code, they should be required at least 
> to keep it valid according to the DTD / XML Schema of the document.
> 
> I hope this common scenario helps to further shape requirements for 
> negotiation between content owner/server, proxy, and user/browser, as 
> well as introducing a minimum for quality assurance and keeping the code 
> clean.
> 
> Cheers,
>   Martin
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 08:23:06 UTC

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