Re: [CTG] Draft 2008-11-07 / http-equiv

From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:36:24 -0800 (PST) To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> Cc: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org Message-ID: <487202.145.qm@web45013.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> · This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:48:47 GMT

> It may be worth expanding upon the point that by HTML
> content we mean any content in the HTML family, including
> XHTML but not including WML. I think WML is out of scope of
> this document - but it's worth having a discussion on
> that.

There is no justification to exclude a major component of the mobile Web. Furthermore, WML does include the http-equiv mechanism, so I do not see any problem in including it.

> Hence clause 3 under 4.1.5 and especially 4.1.5.4

Is there any reason why the two first paragraphs have overlapping but divergent formulations? I.e. linked resource vs. included resource, should use the same user-agent field vs. may use the same header fields?

> Mobile compatible and mobile optimized are not the same
> thing are they?

mobile-optimized => for mobile devices only.
mobile-compatible => also for mobile devices (but for other categories of terminals as well).

E.Casais