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

RE: ACTION-805

From: Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:49:18 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281903CEC0F5@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: "public-mobileok-checker" <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

>But would that constitute a substantive change and if it does and triggers >another last call, is it worth the number of examples actually out there >that it will catch, to go through that pain?

Of course not. If it is going to constitute a substantive change we vote for leave it as is.

Abel.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 02 de julio de 2008 18:18
Para: Abel Rionda
CC: public-mobileok-checker
Asunto: Re: ACTION-805

Can I just clarify this point:

You're saying that

<object data="image.png>   </object> would fail because it has all white 
space content but that

<object data="image.gif">   </object> would not, though it should, to be 
consistent with

<img src="image.gif" alt="   "/> which would fail.

If so, then well, sigh, what do we want to do about it? On the one hand 
changing the object processing rule would make it consistent. But would 
that constitute a substantive change and if it does and triggers another 
last call, is it worth the number of examples actually out there that it 
will catch, to go through that pain?

Jo

ps Mea culpa, btw, for not spotting this before, rats!

On 02/07/2008 16:11, Abel Rionda wrote:
> Hi Jo,
> 
>  
> 
> In today's audio, Miguel raised an interesting point regarding 
> alternatives for images
> 
> included as objects. Currently, mobileOK document only takes into 
> account alternatives for images
> 
> using img tag (NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES). But if an image is included using 
> an object tag (<object data="img.gif" type="image/gif></object>)
> 
> we don't look for alternatives. In object rule processing a check for 
> alternatives is made, but **only** for non supported formats (i.e the 
> previous
> 
> example would not be taking into account ).
> 
>  
> 
> In the discussion today we did not reach agreement whether it is worth 
> making the object rule processing more complex adding a check
> 
> for this case or just leave it as is. In any case, we agreed that a 
> warning would be sufficient.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Abel.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 06:49:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 July 2008 06:49:46 GMT