W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Subtests that apply to HTTP header fields [was: Re: mobileOK validation logic - jar file?]

From: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:24:23 +0000
Message-Id: <CDBF940D-AF88-48D9-9BB3-E0EBE3C647BF@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org, Kentarou Fukuda <KENTAROU@jp.ibm.com>, Yeliz Yesilada <yeliz.yesilada@manchester.ac.uk>
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>

Hi Francois,

Thanks for these and also for your previous suggestions. I have been  
looking at the documentation and also the code, and here is my  
initial thoughts:

1. A mOKI (intermediary) document will be created from the local file  
with some missing information (e.g., HTTPRequest and HTTPResponse,  
etc...)  [Note: Assuming that they will not be provided externally,  
may be done in the future].
2. I suggest that each test returns either "PASS", "FAIL" or  
"NOT_APPLICABLE".
     The overall result will be "IN_COMPLETE", if any of the tests  
return "NOT_APPLICABLE".
Here I am assuming that the tests will stay as they are specified in  
<http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/>, they only return PASS/ 
FAIL/WARNING (if there is a missing information, we will assume that  
that is because of the difference between File/URI validation  
approach, not that because they don't exist in the original document ).

For example, in CACHING <http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/ 
#CACHING>, all the sub-tests assume that we have all the information  
from the HTTP Header, however, with this approach, we will also check  
if know that information and if we won't then the test will return  
"NOT_APPLICABLE".

With this approach, the major changes will be in the way  
"PreProcessorResult" is created and also the XSLT files to check if  
we know the requested HTTP Header information for each test, if we  
don't then the tests will return "NOT_APPLICABLE".

What do you think about this? Does this make sense?

Yeliz.
On 6 Feb 2009, at 13:23, Francois Daoust wrote:

> I'm starting a new thread on that specific point. I had a quick  
> pass through the list of subtests implemented in the mobileOK  
> Checker, and came up with the following list.
>
> I note that the notion of Included Resources [1] relies on the  
> value of the Content-Type HTTP header field for resources extracted  
> from object elements, so the Included Resource definition cannot be  
> properly applied to files. Tests that rely on this notion are  
> listed in the "partial" category below. I think the impact is  
> limited in practice, because object elements with fallbacks are not  
> that common, but that still needs to be taken into account.
>
> [Side note: this actually triggers a potential future feature where  
> a test could return a NOT_APPLICABLE outcome. For the moment, when  
> a page does not contain any script or object element, the  
> OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT test returns a PASS, but it looks weird to say  
> "You've done something correctly" when the sentence should rather  
> read "nothing to test here"].
>
> I may have missed a subtest or two...
>
>
> Subtests that do not apply to files
> -----
> AUTO_REFRESH-3
> AUTO_REFRESH-4
>
> CACHING-1
> CACHING-2
> CACHING-3
> CACHING-4
> CACHING-5
> CACHING-6
> CACHING-7
> CACHING-8
>
> CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT-1
>
> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT-1
> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT-2
> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT-7
> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT-8
> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT-10
>
> HTTP_RESPONSE-1
> HTTP_RESPONSE-4
> HTTP_RESPONSE-5
> HTTP_RESPONSE-6
> HTTP_RESPONSE-7 (well, perhaps we could make a parallel with an  
> "access denied" for files, but I don't think that's needed)
> HTTP_RESPONSE-11
> HTTP_RESPONSE-12
> (note HTTP_RESPONSE-2 and HTTP_RESPONSE-3 simply do not exist  
> anymore, which explains why they are not in the list...)
>
> HTTPS-1
> HTTPS-2
> HTTPS-3
>
> META_HTTP_EQUIV-1
> META_HTTP_EQUIV-2
>
> LINK_TARGET_FORMAT-1
> LINK_TARGET_FORMAT-2
>
> OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT-9
> OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT-10
>
>
> Subtests that apply partially to files
> -----
> HTTP_RESPONSE-8
> HTTP_RESPONSE-9
> HTTP_RESPONSE-10
> -> 404 is equivalent to a missing file
>
> CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT-4
> -> No way to check encoding declared in HTTP header fields
>
> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPORT-9
> -> We can still check whether the resource is a valid JPEG/GIF image
>
> CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT-11
> -> CSS validity can still be checked.
>
> EXTERNAL_RESOURCES-2
> EXTERNAL_RESOURCES-3
> -> Cannot count intermediary HTTP redirections.
> -> No way to check the actual content-type of a file resource
>
> OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT-*
> ->
> PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT-2
> -> HTTP Redirects cannot be taken into account.
> -> Selection of Included Resources is not 100% correct.
>
>
> Francois.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/#included_resources
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 18:25:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 18:25:10 GMT