W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 (scripting, fallback, ...)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:21:16 -0500
To: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1181773276.13326.465.camel@pav>

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 21:07 +0200, Simon Pieters wrote:
[...]
> 
> The tests warn for things that are not supported on some mobile devices,  
> such as scripting, even though it is possible to provide fallback content  
> for UAs without scripting and including scripts doesn't harm UAs that  
> don't support it. I would suggest not warning for things that don't harm  
> mobile browsers and could benefit other UAs, in the interest of not  
> putting unnecessary strain on authors.

I think that's an interesting point, but the way it's phrased
doesn't help me track the status of it as well as I'd like.

In stead of "The tests warn for things..." could you pick one
or two specific bits of text from the mobileOK tests document
that you disagree with?

Also, could you attach or point to a text/example document, perhaps
from your existing research [1] that exemplifies the problem?

There's a mobile best practices checker.
  http://validator.w3.org/mobile/

I presume it's in sync with the mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0,
except for bugs. So a document where you disagree
with the output of the checker will probably help make
your point clear.

Oh... and would you please do this in a new thread?

> [1] http://simon.html5.org/articles/mobile-results
> [2] http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html
> 
> Regards,
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 22:21:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:00 GMT