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

RE: On the way to v1.0: some new tests/bugs/fixes/questions

From: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:23:25 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281903EC45F1@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org>, "public-mobileok-checker" <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

Hi

>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-mobileok-checker-
>request@w3.org] En nombre de Francois Daoust
>Enviado el: domingo, 13 de julio de 2008 19:15
>Para: public-mobileok-checker
>Asunto: On the way to v1.0: some new tests/bugs/fixes/questions
>
>
>Hi guys,
>
>I spent some time testing/debugging/fixing/playing with the checker.
>There were a few bugs that definitely needed to be fixed before I may
>update the online checker.
>

Great work, Francois and long mail ;-).


>Questions that could trigger some more bugs
>-------------------------------------------
>1/ Should the HTTP response returned for the resource under test be
>counted in EXTERNAL_RESOURCES? The doc seems to say it should. I undid
>the change Dom made 3 weeks ago not to count it. Is it correct? On the
>one hand, that means that we only have 9 'slots' for external
resources.

I think the http connections needed to reach the main document must be
counted into EXTERNAL_RESOURCES (perhaps 'EXTERNAL' is a bit confusing)

>On the other hand, it seems a bit strange to count the redirections to
>the primary resource, but not the last HTTP Response as an external
>resource.
>

Not sure what are you talking about.

>2/ Suppose imgA is an image served with caching directives that say
that
>the image should not be cached. If the page defines:
>   <img src="imgA" alt="imgA" />
>   <img src="imgA" alt="imgA" />
>... should imgA be counted twice in EXTERNAL_RESOURCES and
>PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT? If so, then I think it is not handled by the checker
>right now (minor bug I would say, but not trivial to fix).
>
Caching directives are not taken into account. Should they be
considered?

>3/ Hypothetical case:
>   <img src="imgA" alt="imgA" />
>   <img src="imgB" alt="imgB" />
>... Let's suppose a request on imgA yields a redirect to imgB (I know
it
>probably never makes any sense, but that is possible). The redirect
>should be counted in EXTERNAL_RESOURCES and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT. But the
>HTTP response on imgB should be counted only once in EXTERNAL_RESOURCES
>and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT. Am I correct? If so, then there is another minor
>bug here, not trivial to fix.
>
Not sure how a browser will cache imgA. Is the image tied by the first
URL or the last or both?


>4/ I haven't had time to check that yet: are MIME types case-sensitive?
>   <object data="imgA" type="image/gif" />
>   <object data="imgA" type="IMAGE/GIF" />
>(same question with Content-Type headers)
>Looking at HTTPObjectResource.java, I note that the Content-Type header
>is checked in a case-insensitive way, whereas the type attribute is
not.
>
HTTP headers are normalized (changed to lower case and trimmed) so in
this case making case-insensitive comparisons is safe.

>5/ Checks on type attributes and Content-Type headers are made using
>"startsWith". I suppose one may complete the definition of the
>Content-Type with charset details and the like, but that also means
>that: "image/gifted" will match "image/gif". Was the loose check done
on
>purpose?
>
The idea was to make comparisons ignoring possible parameters. I'll
change it so comparisons are made in the whole attribute discarding
possible parameters

>6/ If I understand things correctly, there's a bug in the
>STYLE_SHEETS_USE-4 subtest. See below. But that may be because I didn't
>understand the definition of STYLE_SHEETS_USE-4 correctly.
>
Reading again the test I realize there is no loop so this test should be
applied globally to all style sheets. But I think the idea of this test
was checking each style sheet individually.  We should ask Jo in order
to confirm this.

>Tests
>-----
[The list of new tests removed for shortness sake. Refer to original
email]
Really awesome test suite addition

>Bugs fixed
>----------
[The list of fixed bugs removed for shortness sake. Refer to original
email]
Thanks for fixing all those bugs

>New bugs
>--------
[The list of new bugs removed for shortness sake. Refer to original
email]

I'll add them to bugzilla as soon as I check them. Maybe I'll repost
some of those bugs on their own thread if they need some clarify.

Regards,
Miguel
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 17:24:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 July 2008 17:24:09 GMT