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

RE: ACTION 515 -CSS stuff partially done

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B43BC735@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "Abel Rionda" <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org>
Cc: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

> First would it be more desirable to re-use the <position> tag syntax
> that we conceived for the result document? this presents a similar,
> but different tag called <location>. We also used <info> rather than
> <description> in the results document.

This was prototyped in various other results in the moki format - UTF-8
etc. I personally don't see a big deal in doing it one way or the other,
but I have been meaning to check out the reference Dom gave us at the
F2F to work on a consistent error reporting format. Perhaps there's
something we could borrow from that?

Jo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok-
> checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Owen
> Sent: 26 June 2007 17:58
> To: Abel Rionda
> Cc: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION 515 -CSS stuff partially done
> 
> 
> This is good stuff -- I have two comments on the result format.
> 
> First would it be more desirable to re-use the <position> tag syntax
> that we conceived for the result document? this presents a similar,
> but different tag called <location>. We also used <info> rather than
> <description> in the results document.
> 
> I remain a little concerned that the line between the "preprocessing"
> and "tests" is becoming blurred and the result will be difficult to
> comprehend. It makes sense to produce an intermediate document that
> records the result of accessing a CSS resource and even parsing it.
> 
> Here I think we've gone a step beyond that and put mobileOK
> Basic-specific information into this document -- that is, which
> properties in the stylesheet aren't allowed by mobileOK Basic.
> 
> I think this logic should be implemented only in the test and
> presented in the results document. Thoughts?
> 
> On 6/26/07, Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> >
> >
> > Although code in CVS is being updating with the new test format, we
have
> > committed
> >
> > some changes related to our CSS action.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *We have introduced stylesheet block. So far this stylesheet tag can
be
> > built from
> >
> >  linked  or embedded CSS Resources. In both cases W3CValidator will
> process
> > any
> >
> > @import rule found (But we lose the retrieval information of
imported
> CSS).
> > So there will be
> >
> > an stylesheet block per top level CSS resource)
> >
> >
> >
> > *CSS validity messages from W3CValidator tool are allocated inside a
> > CSSValidity block with
> >
> > the same structure  used for grammar
> > validation.(error-location-description).
> >
> >
> >
> > *For each CSS test we have an special block with the information
needed
> to
> > pass the test
> >
> > via XSLT. Currently we only have the information for Style Sheet
Support
> > Test.
> >
> >
> >
> > To illustrate these changes see the following extract from moki
> document.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <stylesheets>
> >
> >       <stylesheet type="embedded">
> >
> >
> > <URI>http://idi.fundacionctic.org/bk/google.xhtml</URI>
> >
> >          <CSSValidity valid="false">
> >
> >             <error code="-1">
> >
> >                <location type="LineAndColumn">1, 0</location>
> >
> >                <description>Property colo doesn't
exist</description>
> >
> >             </error>
> >
> >          </CSSValidity>
> >
> >          <stylesheetSupportTest>
> >
> >             <error code="-1">
> >
> >                <location type="LineAndColumn">1, 0</location>
> >
> >                <description>float:left</description>
> >
> >             </error>
> >
> >          </stylesheetSupportTest>
> >
> >       </stylesheet>
> >
> >    </stylesheets>
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 17:06:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:03 GMT