W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > November 2008

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

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:04:50 +0000
Message-ID: <491966D2.90600@mtld.mobi>
To: casays@yahoo.com
CC: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org

Further comments in line.

On 11/11/2008 10:36, Eduardo Casais wrote:
>> 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.
> 
It's a discussion that goes back a very long way. And certainly at the 
time we thought that there was strong justification for referring to 
HTML (in its broadest sense) as Web content but not to WML, since that 
is not a component of the Web per se. Nor is J2ME etc. A Web browser, or 
so we thought at the time, is by definition something that handles HTML. 
The fact that we don't refer to WML doesn't mean that CT proxies should 
not do sensible things with it. Ditto J2ME and so on.

>> 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?

Yes, because included resources are style sheets and images (basically) 
and linked resources are other Web pages. Now that you point it out I 
realise that there should be a link on "linked resources" to section 
4.3.8 of mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 like there is on "included resources" 
to 4.3.7 of ibid.

Included resources are "part of the same resource" and the linked 
resources referred to here are part of the same Web site so there is 
less, but still strong justification for needing the same User Agent.

> 
>> 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
> 
> 
>       
> 
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 11:05:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 November 2008 11:05:58 GMT