Re: Validator

Thank you Phil and Francois for taking the time to respond.

Francois, the URL is http://mobile.dp.bz.

http://validator.w3.org/mobile/check?task=2009082715071964&docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fmobile.dp.bz%2F
The error that is returned is "[medium] The CSS style sheet is not served as
"text/css""  I made of copy of the file and named it style.css and in my
page I link to that instead then rerun the test, I get 57/100 instead of
52/100.

Here are a few other things I'm not understanding:
"[low] The document does not contain a DOCTYPE declaration"

However it does, unless mobile has to be XHTML, which I don't see anything
about that under mobileOK Basic Tests.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

"[medium] The HTTP Content-Type header does not specify a character encoding
and no UTF-8 encoding or a non-UTF-8 is specified in the XML declaration
UTF-8 is specified, however it's looking at my style.asp, which is the style
sheet, saying it doesn't have UTF-8 specified.  I'm not sure I've ever seen
someone specify encoding in their style sheet before.   Possibly because
it's a .ASP file?

BTW, I got an error, showed up as a alert() on the mobileOK checker..
<<Attached>>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Gavin,
>
> Thanks for your message.
> Please see inline.
>
> Gavin Landon wrote:
>
>> I'm going to jump a little off subject, but I'm unable to hold back
>> anymore.. lol.
>>  Markup Validation Service "MVS"
>> vs
>> mobileOK Checker "MC"
>>  They don't follow the same rules.
>>
>
> The markup validation service is a syntax check at the markup level. It
> makes sure that the HTML/XHTML content follows the HTML/XHTML spec it claims
> to follow. It is still perfectly possible to create a Web page that passes
> the validation and provides an awful user experience, does not work on
> browsers, is not accessible, and/or cannot be displayed on most mobile
> devices. The markup validation service only checks the grammar.
>
> The mobileOK Checker tries to go beyond and see what may or may not be
> appropriate for mobile devices. It follows a set of rules taken from the
> Mobile Web Best Practices standard, written by this group:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/
>
> The exact rules are defined in the mobileOK Basic Tests standard:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/
>
> The best practices do not introduce any new rule or technology, they just
> alert authors on rules that do not work on most mobile devices (e.g. using
> tables for layout or relying on Javascript support), and give some advice to
> help improve the user experience of their site on mobile devices (e.g. focus
> on central meaning of the page).
>
>
>  Seems the mobile version is more complicated and in a lot of ways, for no
>> reason.
>>
>
> Markup validation is just one check in the list of checks the mobileOK
> Checker performs. Markup validation is performed against the XHTML Basic 1.1
> (or XHTML MP1.2) DTD because that's what most mobile devices support. In
> particular, the validation is carried out against one of these doctypes
> regardless of the doctype declaration in the page.
>
> There are good reasons to run the additional tests!
> Check the Mobile Web Best Practices document for details. If you feel the
> explanations returned by the mobileOK Checker are unclear, I am the one to
> blame, so please let me know how I could improve the messages!
>
>
>  I have a mobile site, which validates with MVS, but has a 49/100 with MC.
>>  I've tested my domain with many browsers, both on desktops and mobile
>> devices and I haven't run into any issues.   Soon as I start making changes
>> to work with the MC, it causes issues with MVS.
>>
>
> If the mobileOK Checker complains about markup validation where the markup
> validation service does not, it probably means your Web page uses a non-XML
> doctype such as HTML 4.01. As mentioned above, the mobileOK Checker
> validates the content against an XHTML doctype.
>
> If your content is already XHTML, then fixing a markup validation issue
> returned by the mobileOK Checker should fix the same markup validation issue
> in the list of errors reported by the markup validation service, as far as I
> can tell. Let me know if you have an example where this is not the case.
>
> Note it is perfectly fine to have HTML 4.01 content, it just happens that
> most mobile devices out there have better support for XHTML content. The
> syntax differences between HTML and XHTML are usually minor enough for the
> difference not to perceptible. The mobileOK Checker makes sure the
> validation errors are reported (the mobileOK Checker UI reports them with a
> "low" severity).
>
>
>  I'm assuming it's expected that everyone have a different domain/pages for
>> mobile vs desktops, but why?   Why should people have too with the
>> technology that exists with rules that are already in place?
>>
>
> It is not expected that everyone have a different domain and different
> pages for mobile devices. The Mobile Web Best Practices were written to
> alert authors on things to consider when authoring content that would also
> work on mobile devices.
>
> The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) play a similar role for
> accessibility:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
> It is not expected that web sites will provide a different version for
> people with disabilities. It is not expected that web sites will provide a
> different version for people that use mobile devices either.
>
> The more agnostic your Web page is of the requesting device, the more
> likely it will be that the Web page works fine on a wide range of browsers
> and modalities: desktops, mobiles, aural, ... This is exactly the vision the
> W3C is trying to promote.
>
> That said, if you know the capabilities of the requesting device that sends
> the request, it is considered best practice to adapt your content to match
> these capabilities, and try to improve the user experience as much as
> possible. You may also decide that you need a dedicated mobile version of
> the site that is different from the desktop because the targeted user is not
> the same (the user who uses a mobile device is on the go, has limited
> availability, ...), and thus manage two distinct sites.
>
>
>   Example, I have style sheets that has
>
>> an ASP extension so it can be dynamic, but MC doesn't like this.  It wants
>> a css extensions on the file, why?   This information is coming from the
>> file in proper css format, it shouldn't matter what the extension is.  It's
>> type has been set as a text/css, so all browsers should know how to handle
>> it.
>>
>
> Could you provide the address of the Web page that you checked and the
> error returned by the mobileOK Checker?
> The mobileOK Checker identifies content based on its media type. It should
> not complain if the CSS is returned with a text/css media type, no matter
> what the "extension" of the file may be. If it does, it's a bug I'd be happy
> to fix.
>
>
>  As an engineer/architect, I require structure, because it works.
>>  Sometimes you have to build a road around a mountain.  It may take a little
>> longer to drive it, but it still works.  However, when you build a mall on
>> top of a house, they both will eventually collapse and/or no one will use
>> either of them.   A good analogy is like changing a cars engine, because
>> there's new spark plugs available for it.   The Internet is the engine
>> driving us to a greater future.   Mobile devices should be following the
>> rules that are in place, not change the Internet for the mobile devices.
>>  Anyone can make a light version of their domain to display more clearly on
>> a mobile device using the existing rules.   We need rules that websites can
>> clearly pick out if the device talking to them is Mobile or not.  That's a
>> rule that I don't see anyone coming up with and if it exists, no one is
>> using it, hints the mall...   Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't have new
>> rules for mobile devices, I'm just saying we shouldn't remove existing rules
>> that work without mobile.  This is clearly the case in the single example I
>> mentioned above.
>>
>
> Well, it does match the preoccupations of the working group when it wrote
> the Mobile Web Best Practices and the mobileOK Basic Tests specifications.
> Could you point out a "new" rule?
>
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>



-- 
Gavin

Attachments

Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 15:58:20 UTC