W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > April to June 2007

RE: [mobileOK] i18n comment: encoding="ISO639"

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 09:14:51 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B43BBAED@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, <mike@w3.org>, <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>

Hello Martin

Thanks for your comment. I wonder if you would be good enough to clarify
your points so that we can be sure we understand them correctly.

As a general point we agree strongly that it is not up to us to redefine
existing standards or create new ones. It is our remit to interpret them
and to offer practical guidance - especially in cases where the
standards are unclear or are contradictory. Our objective is to help
people produce content that works and that implies that we also take
into account the existing state of user agents.

>From that perspective we'd appreciate your spelling out where you think
we have gone off the rails, so to speak.

Thanks
Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-bpwg-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> Sent: 08 June 2007 07:59
> To: mike@w3.org; ishida@w3.org
> Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [mobileOK] i18n comment: encoding="ISO639"
> 
> 
> I have to very strongly agree with what Richard wrote.
> 
> What's even more, there is no reason for the Mobile Web Best
> Practices to change basic Web standards. Documents that are
> standard-conforming according to HTTP, HTML, and so on shouldn't
> suddenly be met with FAIRure unless there is a really good reason
> to do so (which I can't se here at all).
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> At 01:11 07/06/08, mike@w3.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear <ishida@w3.org>,
> >
> >The Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group has reviewed the comments
you
> >sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the W3C mobileOK Basic
> >Tests 1.0 published on 30 Jan 2007. Thank you for having taken the
time
> to
> >review the document and to send us comments!
> >
> >The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and
has
> >been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
> >http://www.w3.org/TR /2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/
> >
> >Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or
not
> >before 22 June 2007. In case of disagreement, you are requested to
> provide
> >a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working
Group.
> If
> >such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the
opportunity to
> >raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director
> >during the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C
> >Recommendation Track.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >For the Mobile Web Best Practice Working Group,
> >Michael(tm) Smith
> >W3C Staff Contact
> >
> > 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/20070321154038.C35994F10A@homer.w3.org
> > 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130/
> >
> >
> >=====
> >
> >Your comment on 3.3 CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and
> CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE:
> >> Comment from the i18n review of:
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130/
> >>
> >> Comment 3
> >> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0703-mobileok/
> >> Editorial/substantive: S
> >> Owner: RI
> >>
> >> Location in reviewed document:
> >> 3.3 CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE
> >>
> >> Comment:
> >> [[If character encoding is specified in more than one way, and not
all
> >> values are the same, FAIL]]
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not personally familiar with transcoding scenarios, but I've
heard
> >> people often quoting them as justification for using the HTTP
header to
> >> declare encodings and for the HTTP declaration to have higher
> precedence
> >> in HTML than the in-document declarations. As I understand it, the
> >> rationale is that a transcoding server can change the encoding of
the
> >> document as it passes through, but doesn't change in the internal
> >> encoding declaration. Since HTTP declarations beat in-document
> >> declarations, this is supposed to be OK. I've also heard that this
kind
> >> of thing happens particularly when serving documents to mobile
devices.
> >> If this is true, then I guess there must be occasions when it is
> >> permissible for the HTTP header declaration to be different from
the
> >> other two?
> >
> >
> >Working Group Resolution:
> >Transcoding and adaptation are orthogonal questions. mobileOK is
> concerned
> >with content delivered to a device, regardless of how it was created.
> >Transcoders that behave in this way may well cause a resource to fail
> >mobileOK tests.
> >
> >----
> 
> 
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp
mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> 
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 08:15:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:52 GMT