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

RE: [Fwd: MobileOK Validator Issues]

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:24:19 -0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B4D16B4F@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>

> impact. I am happy to leave the BP alone.

I think it's more a question of adjusting mobileOK and the conformance
test suite?

Jo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com]
> Sent: 12 March 2008 13:52
> To: Jo Rabin
> Cc: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: MobileOK Validator Issues]
> 
> OK I think we are in agreement then. I am, personally, willing to
> treat it as a known issue in the checker, which has little practical
> impact. I am happy to leave the BP alone.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  Going back to Dom's earlier advice not to test declared validity, I
> think the value here is to not so much to say:
> >
> >  "You say you're a Ham Sandwich, you're not, and neither are you
valid
> XHTML Basic"
> >
> >  So much as
> >
> >  "You say you're valid XHTML, you are, but unfortunately you're not
> valid XHTML Basic."
> >
> >  Which I think is worthwhile, although it doesn't reach the
minimalist
> level recommended by Dom.
> >
> >  If we are going to make this change then I suppose that needs to be
> reflected in mobileOK Basic, and we need to firm up on the idea of
"Well
> Known" DTDs (and their locations) and make that normative, I think.
> >
> >  Either way, the conversation needs to be had on the BP List etc.
> >
> >  Jo
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 15:24:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 March 2008 15:24:46 GMT