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

RE: [Fwd: Questions on Checker]

From: Abel Rionda <abel.rionda@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:10:15 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281903CEC80D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org>
Cc: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "public-mobileok-checker" <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

>I am still sceptical that an absolute pixel measure on the height of an

>hr element is unacceptable. However an absolute width would be. To fix 
>it would mean going to version 45 of mobileOK, which I am reluctant to 
>do ... but ...

Yes, I agree that an absolute height value should not raise a FAIL
(since the DDC only specifies a maximum width)
A quick solution would be exclude the height property from MEASURES
tests
(as we are currently doing with border, margin and padding properties).

Abel.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org] En nombre de Jo Rabin
Enviado el: jueves, 10 de julio de 2008 9:44
Para: Francois Daoust
CC: Sean Owen; public-mobileok-checker
Asunto: Re: [Fwd: Questions on Checker]


Hello Sean! And thanks Francois for pointing out that the wrong document

was being checked.

I am still sceptical that an absolute pixel measure on the height of an 
hr element is unacceptable. However an absolute width would be. To fix 
it would mean going to version 45 of mobileOK, which I am reluctant to 
do ... but ...

Jo

On 10/07/2008 08:17, Francois Daoust wrote:
> Sean Owen wrote:
>> (Is the document returned to a desktop browser the same as what is
>> returned to the checker? maybe so, but I have not checked this.)
>>
>> I wonder, do we check for "UTF-8" in a case-insensitive way? well
>> there's a bug if we don't.
> 
> We are, AFAICT. I see checks with "equalsIgnoreCase" all over the
place...
> 
> 
>> The error is on a style with selector ".hr" which isn't used in the
>> main doc. Is that still an error?  yeah I think so. If it's not used,
>> it shouldn't really appear anyway in the response to a mobile
request.
>> I don't think it's necessary to get into deciding whether the rule is
>> used. It's still valid to flag this one.
> 
> I think so as well.
> 
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>>> I just ran
>>>
>>>
http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fwapreview.mobi%2F
>>>
>>> and was surprised to see the character encoding error. Looks to me 
>>> like the
>>> xml declaration does specify utf-8.
> 
> The checker that is at http://validator.w3.org/mobile is still the
beta 
> version. There's one bug in there about redirections that was fixed
not 
> so long ago.
> 
> http://wapreview.mobi/
> ... returns a 302. The HTML body response of this 302 triggers the
error 
> (Apache typically sends 302 responses encoded in ISO-8859-1 IIRC, and 
> there's no easy way to change that behavior). But the checker should
not 
> check the response.
> 
> Typically, the error is not returned when checking:
>
http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fwapreview.mobi%2Fwp
-mobile.php 
> 
> 
> Dom fixed the bug in the library.
> I'll update the checker used http://validator.w3.org/mobile when we
get 
> a v0.99999 version. Hopefully today.
> 
> Francois.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 08:10:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 July 2008 08:10:45 GMT