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

False positives with the mobileOK validator

From: Kevin Ghadyani <reply@umkcddr.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:22:45 -0500
Message-ID: <4A5E3A95.3060807@umkcddr.com>
To: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
If CSS is supposed to allow images to have height and width values 
associated with classes or IDs, why does the mobileOK validator just 
completely over look this? I always wind up having issues with the being 
no height and width values even though I have them set in the stylesheet.

I suddenly got another problem with one of my stylesheets showing up as 
not syntactically valid, but when I use the CSS validator, it works just 
fine as do all of my other stylesheets. In fact, the only thing I've 
done thus far to change things on my website is add in a mobile.css file 
along with the master.css file which is called whenever someone's on the 
mobile site. Since it validates properly, I figure it shouldn't pull up 
errors either in the mobileOK validator.

It noted this:
The style sheets contain syntax errors, and thus are likely to create 
problems with some browsers.
Use the W3C CSS Validator to find and correct CSS syntax errors.
Triggered  by http://m.kevinghadyani.com/mobile.css.

Related best practice:
         Send content in a format that is known to be supported by the 
But my CSS file is only 4 entries that properly validate:
p.mobile {
     margin:0 auto;

     margin:0 auto;

p.mobileinfochoices {
     margin:0 auto;

h1 {
     margin:0 auto;
And then it goes ahead and makes a comment of about the set height and 
width in my master.css which, surprisingly, has the height and width 
values of the images it claimed I was lacking.

Then it warns me that I don't have the right character encoding or 
something like that. It's actually quite confusing to understand: "The 
resource does not specify UTF-8 as character encoding". The validator 
for XHTML 1.1 and XHTML-MP 1.2 both don't throw up warnings for this, 
and it's actually in my code <meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="<? 
meta() ?>;charset=utf-8" /> so I don't know what the mobileOK validator 
is complaining about.

Most other validators and analyzers have this problem too, but it seems 
like it should be corrected.

It notes my master.css file has position:relative in there 3 times. 
That's correct. I'm unsure if I actually need those in my master.css 
anyway, but since my site works fine on all devices I've tested on, I do 
not know if it's safe to remove it. This warning is repeated when it 
states: "The CSS Style contains at-rules, properties, or values that may 
not be supported" and shows me the 3 lines that says "position" in the 
master.css file.

There's an image error because my images are PNG instead of GIF or JPEG. 
I'm fine with that because out of the multitude of devices I've used, 
PNGs work fine if only a bit messy if transparency is used so this error 
I'd prefer to see as a warning but it's fine.

It has another complaint about character encoding: "The HTTP 
Content-Type header does not specify a character encoding and no UTF-8 
encoding or a non-UTF-8 is specified in the XML declaration". I assume 
my lack of an <?xml ?> character encoding declaration is the problem 
even though I have UTF-8 specified in the HTML? From reading the W3C's 
reports, it seems like the <?xml ?> header is negligible and a problem 
to IE uses of all kinds, that's why the standard was rectified to allow 
the DOCTYPE first. If needed, I can use PHP to fix it so only IE doesn't 
display it since I have IE to render the page as text/html anyway.

I get an error that says I am using "no-cache" or "max-age=0". In fact, 
that's wrong: <meta http-equiv="Cache-Control" content="max-age=64000" 
/>. It complains about Pragma, but I don't even use that or know it's 
usage. It says my Expires header contains a date in the past even though 
I don't use it either. Both say "Triggered  by the resource under test." 
I have no clue what that means.

The page is served as:"application/vnd.wap.xhtml+
xml" but it asks for "application/xhtml+xml". Is it wrong to serve 
XHTML-MP 1.2 as "application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml"?

I'm pretty sure it's just me, and that I've done something screwy on my 
end, but truth be told, if I don't say anything, an actual validator 
issue could go overlooked.

Thank you for your help.
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 23:06:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:21 UTC