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

Re: Object issue

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:06:27 +0200
To: Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org>
Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1214917587.7290.42.camel@altocumulustier>

Le mardi 01 juillet 2008 à 14:53 +0200, Abel Rionda a écrit :
> [...]
> We think that it is sufficient for Page Size Limit and External
> Resources.

It might be sufficient, but you would also need to have the ancestor
attribute added to the relevant <image>s in case of
<object data="foo.png"><img src="foo.gif" /></object>

Also, using an attribute this way is going to be problematic if a given
URI is referenced several times in a given document; i.e. how would you
encode the following doc:
<object data="foo.png"><img src="foo.gif" /></object>
<object data="foo.svg"><object data="foo.png"><object

So, it might actually be quite tricky to get this right... Is it too
complicated to use the idea we discussed on the call last week, having
something like:
<objectInfo loadtype="rendered"/> 
<objectInfo loadtype="tasted"/>
based on the object processing rules?

>  Anyway, if we had the following case:
> <object type="image/jpeg" data="image.jpeg">
> <img src="image.gif"/>
> </object>
> Should the gif image be counted for the PageSizeLimit Test? Currently
> the checker is taking it into account.

No, it shouldn't take it into account (nor in ExternalResources).

>  BTW, MobileOk document is not
> clear about this.

Actually, the object element processing rules (linked from
PageSizeLimit) specifies that you should stop going down the content of
an object element if its type is image/jpeg or image/gif. (it could be
clarified, but I think it does say the right thing)

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 13:07:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:20 UTC