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

Re: WICD Core 10.0: Intended Layout

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:54:10 +0100
Message-ID: <48B3FCF2.2060407@mtld.mobi>
To: Timur Mehrvarz <timur.mehrvarz@web.de>
CC: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, "public-bpwg-comments@w3.org" <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>

I'm not sure if this is intended as a comment on the current last call 
draft of the CT Guidelines [1] or not?

Either way, that document doesn't refer to browser side adaptation, so I 
don't know that there is scope to refer to meta viewport.


On 13/08/2008 09:59, Timur Mehrvarz wrote:
> Hi Jose Manuel,
> browser-adaptation and proxy-transformation are related, for sure. And 
> authors need to be able to switch off both adaptation techniques. I'm 
> just not convinced that there must be a single off-switch for the two 
> things.
> If <meta name="viewport" .../> can be used to switch off 
> browser-adaptation and something else (maybe a HTTP header, maybe a 
> handheld style sheet) can be used to reliably prevent 
> proxy-transformations, wouldn't that be okay as well?
> Browser vendors may lay out the argument for why media="handheld" does 
> not switch off browser adaptation. What I can say, is that meta/viewport 
> does seem to work just fine. And that w3 specs may need to adjust - and 
> not give wrong advice.
> Timur
> On 11.08.2008, at 16:58, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote:
>> Hi Timur,
>> The problem of not activating client-side, browser-made adaptation 
>> seems to be very similar to the problem of announcing that a web page 
>> is intended to mobile devices in order not to be "touched" by 
>> server-side Content Transformation Proxies. The CT Guidelines spec [1] 
>> advocates, among others, the usage of <link rel="alternate" 
>> media="handheld"> mechanisms to announce it.
>> I think W3C needs to provide a unique solution to the problem and not 
>> to suggest different mechanisms in different specs.
>> I'm ccing the BP group mailing list
>> Best Regards
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: public-cdf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-cdf-request@w3.org] En 
>> nombre de Timur Mehrvarz
>> Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de agosto de 2008 16:56
>> Para: public-cdf@w3.org
>> Asunto: WICD Core 10.0: Intended Layout
>> WICD Core 10.2 "Style sheet being provided for specific agent classes"
>> says:
>>   A user agent that discovers a CSS style sheet, provided for its own
>> device
>>   class, should assume the content was created with specific
>> properties "in
>>   mind". The agent is then expected to deactivate any custom adaptation
>>   techniques (for example rendering wide screen content on a narrow
>> screen)
>>   and display the intended layout "as is".
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/WICD/#intended-layout-1
>> When creating content for small screen devices, the ability to tell
>> user agents to _not_ activate any adaptation techniques is
>> indispensable.
>> MobileSafari and Opera Mobile support this now - but differently. Both
>> agents support the  <meta name="viewport" content="...">  element in
>> HTML as described here:
>> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/UsingtheViewport/chapter_4_section_5.html 
>> As a consequence, I request an update to WICD Core 10.2 and 10.3, so
>> that the desired functionality does not anymore depend on the use of
>> style sheets, but the meta/viewport element. The existing
>> specification on developer.apple.com, refers to the iPhone only and it
>> also does not specify the meta element for use in XHTML. It would be
>> good to have a w3 rewrite of this functionality.
>> Since two vendors support the desired behaviour already, two more
>> fields in the WICD testsuite could go straight from red to green.
>> Timur
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 12:55:39 UTC

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