W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > December 2008

Re: mobileOK validation logic - jar file?

From: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:11:30 +0000
Message-Id: <E817981A-3E20-418F-B9A5-59CDB59F1F01@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org>, Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org>, Kentarou Fukuda <KENTAROU@jp.ibm.com>, Yeliz Yesilada <yeliz.yesilada@manchester.ac.uk>, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
To: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org

If we use the Tester (URI) and Tester (File) in co-ordination (by  
testing the HTTP behaviour with Tester (URI) and the rest with Tester  
(File)), can we address that problem?

I understand that checker doesn't handle local files, but why do you  
have a Tester(File)? so I am right in assuming that this method is  
not fully implemented?

Regards,
Yeliz.
On 10 Dec 2008, at 11:10, Jo Rabin wrote:

> > Yes, you are right. As my colleague Miguel said, the solution for  
> your
> > integration problem is to extend HTTPClient library to accept local
> > files. Unfortunately, we do not have much available time to work  
> on this
> I think that we also need to consider what happens to tests for  
> HTTP behaviour - since in this case there is no HTTP behaviour. As  
> mobileOK stands you must either pass or fail a test, since you  
> can't pass a test for HTTP behavior if no HTTP is present  
> presumably you must fail?
>
> Jo
>
> On 10/12/2008 08:59, Abel Rionda wrote:
>> Hi Yeliz,
>>> 1. send local HTML file to mobileOK
>>> 2. send a DOM object  to mobileOK
>>> 3. get HTML file from mobileOK
>>> I am not sure about the feasibility of these options. As far as I  
>>> can  tell from the source code and also from the documentation on  
>>> CVS, we  cannot do option 2 and option 3. Am I right?
>> Yes, you are right. As my colleague Miguel said, the solution for  
>> your
>> integration problem is to extend HTTPClient library to accept local
>> files. Unfortunately, we do not have much available time to work  
>> on this
>> (besides it is a bit out of scope regarding mobileOK Basic Tests).
>> Anyway, since checker code is open source you can extend it for this
>> purpose and do not hesitate in asking any doubt you might have.
>> Regards,
>> Abel.
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: Yeliz Yesilada [mailto:yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk] Enviado el:  
>> lunes, 08 de diciembre de 2008 8:32
>> Para: Miguel Garcia
>> CC: Abel Rionda; public-mobileok-checker@w3.org; Kentarou Fukuda;  
>> Yeliz
>> Yesilada
>> Asunto: Re: mobileOK validation logic - jar file?
>> Hi Miguel,
>> Thanks for your quick response. Please see my comments below.
>> On 5 Dec 2008, at 12:45, Miguel Garcia wrote:
>>> You're right, Yeliz. Again there is a problem because differencies
>>> between Linux and Windows and how they handle uris (specifically  
>>> path
>>> separators).
>>>
>>> Solve this problem is quite easy but fixing will be reveal another
>>> issue.
>> I guess it would be good to fix this anyway as others who might  
>> be  interested in using this library might run into the same  
>> problem :)
>>> The checker doesn't handle local files, I mean that the
>>> connection library we use to handle connections doesn't support the
>>> file: protocol. MobileOk Basic requires the page is served by a HTTP
>>> server in order to check some connection parameters so during design
>>> there was no need to include a feature for analyzing local files.
>>>
>>> The connection library, HTTPClient, is extensible so it could be
>>> "tricked" to accept file: connections but not sure how much work  
>>> it  will
>>> take.
>>>
>>> If you tell me a bit how aDesigner and MobileOk tester are linked
>>> together I could think about other solutions.
>> aDesigner has a validation infrastructure that allows you to  
>> extend  it and add new validation components. Users are then  
>> allowed to  specify in their preferences which validation  
>> component they would  like to use, for example WCAG 1.0, Section  
>> 508, IBM Accessibility  guidelines, etc. I have extended this so  
>> that the users can also  choose to validate their pages against  
>> mobileOK. However, since we  now give the URI to mobileOK tester,  
>> mobileOK creates its own HTTP  connection to the target URL, and  
>> parses and tests the resulting  HTML. On the other hand, other  
>> aDesigner omponents use HTML in IE  browser. So, in some cases,  
>> line/column numbers (which are also used  for visualisation)  
>> differ because they parse different HTML  documents. Therefore, we  
>> need to make sure that other aDesigner  components and mobileOK  
>> test the same page. I talked to Kentarou  (CC'ed here) who is one  
>> of the main developers of aDesigner and we  think there are three  
>> options for this.
>> 1. send local HTML file to mobileOK
>> 2. send a DOM object  to mobileOK
>> 3. get HTML file from mobileOK
>> I am not sure about the feasibility of these options. As far as I  
>> can  tell from the source code and also from the documentation on  
>> CVS, we  cannot do option 2 and option 3. Am I right?
>> If you need more information, please let me know.
>> Regards,
>> Yeliz.
Received on Monday, 15 December 2008 07:12:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 December 2008 07:12:24 GMT