W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mwts@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Comments on the Mobile Acid test

From: Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:19:57 +0100
Message-ID: <b24851260804080619r3ae97060hf7a2cc109ae281bb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wilhelm Joys Andersen" <wilhelmja@opera.com>
Cc: public-mwts@w3.org

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Wilhelm Joys Andersen
<wilhelmja@opera.com> wrote:
>  | Firstly I think we should recognise the Iphone as the baseline. Having
>  | the iphone fail any tests right now is a little silly IMO...
>  I'd like to aim higher than the current generation of mobile browsers. The
> iPhone is not on par with desktop browsers yet; neither is Opera. (c:

Several of these tests fail on advanced desktop browsers. I really
think we should aim the test as verifying the iphone or WebKit as the
baseline for the "mobile web". Which it is in reality.

Sidenote: Though I was thinking that is it really a good message to
send out that there is a "mobile specific" acid test? Should we not
push instead for the Acid2 to be met on mobiles?
http://flickr.com/photos/hendry/2398552896/

>  SVG is a requirement from several major operators, and is a standard we
> want browsers, including the next version of the browser on the iPhone, to
> support.

I'm not sure about the operator argument. Operators fall over each
other in the UK to become Apple vendors. ;)

>  | Isn't it better to test for gzip support or something.
>  That is a good idea. How can we test that?

http://whatsmyip.org/mod_gzip_test/
Looking at Accept-Encoding (gsnedders from #whatwg gave that tip)?

>  | XMLHTTPRequest
>  |       Yes! Maybe some more basic JS tests?
>  Yes, that should be added. Suggestions?

I'll ask around.

>  Possibly. Many operator proxies do lots of strange stuff to HTTP requests
> from mobile browsers. Although I'd prefer if they didn't, I don't think that
> it should be included in this test, as this is beyond the control of the UA.

The "mobile acid test" or whatever the name will be is more than a UA
test. This test IMO is verifying the basic requirements of the mobile
Web. (if possible!)

>  The performance requirement in the Acid3 test caused a lot of confusion.
> I'd like to avoid that in this test, leaving performance testing to
> performance tests.

Hmmm, I still would like to see some sort of performance indicator. I
think it will be extremely useful.

>  Many CMSes, blogs, etc. use contenteditable for editing rich text. If we
> want mobile browsers to be able to use the same web applications as desktop
> computers, they need to support this.

Can you give a URL to an example? I very rarely create content from
mobile devices. I just consume. :)



Another thought; mobile platforms compared to desktop platforms are
usually very bad at keeping software up to date.

However this does seem like an unreasonable amount of work maintaining
some sort of current release DB for gecko,webkit & opera. However if
we could verify that for example:
"Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1
(KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3" is running
the latest update (4A102), then it passes. If not it fails.



Kind regards,
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 13:20:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 April 2008 13:20:41 GMT