W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2007

MobileOK review

From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:43:02 +0200
Message-ID: <46653E36.2060105@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi group,

here's a summary about my review of the MobileOK Basic Tests LCWD (25 
May 2007):

2.3.2 HTTP Request

> Implementations must support URIs with both http and https  scheme components.

What to do with different URI schemes? Ignore them?


2.3.2 HTTP Response

Is the algorithm described in the box a test on its own like the tests 
described in section 3?

> If the HTTP status indicates redirection (status code 3xx):
> 
> Do not carry out tests on the response

What to do with invalid location header values (URIs that are not absolute)?

absoluteURI   = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )

Quite a lot of servers create

   Location: /foo.bar

instead of

   Location: http://www.example.org/foo.bar


2.3.5 CSS Style

> resources linked by xml-stylesheet  processing instructions

Add ", as defined in 2.3.7 Included Style Sheet Resources".


2.3.10 White Space

How is white space defined for "Included Style Sheet Resources"? Does it 
depend on the "parent" document's XML version?


3 mobileOK Basic Tests

Some tests (3.1, 3.8, 3.13, 3.15, 3.21-3.24) are like

   If xyz element exists, ...
   If the document contains ...

(which implies at most 1 message if the condition is true)

some (3.5, 3.7, 3.9, 3.12, 3.14, 3.18, 3.19) are like

   For each xyz element, ...

(which implies a message for each condition that is true)

This could be harmonized.


3.2 CACHING

> In the following, note that HTTP headers should be used rather than meta elements with http-equiv attributes, which are commonly not taken into account by proxies. Where both a meta element and the corresponding header are found the value of the header must be used.

Should meta elements be used in the absence of HTTP headers?


3.3  CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE

> application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8"

Remove '"'.

> For each resource specified by 2.3.6 Included Resources:
> 
> Request the resource

Here and elsewhere, where the message body is not involved (3.6, 3.10, 
3.16): Would a HEAD instead of GET request be sufficient?


3.4 CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT  and VALID_MARKUP

> If the document is an HTML document

What is "an HTML document" here? Which characteristics are to be checked?


3.6 EXTERNAL_RESOURCES

> Note that if an HTTP request is unsuccessful while conducting this test

What is "unsuccessful" here?

> Count the total number of unique included resources, as defined in 2.3.6 Included Resources

Add '.'.


3.12 MINIMIZE

> Count number of white space characters in a sequence of more than one white space character (not counting the first), which exist outside of a pre, style, script element, or XML comment

So unnecessary white space in internal CSS (style elements) is not counted?

What about white space in style attribute values? What about white space 
in "Included Style Sheet Resources"?


3.16 PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT

> If the size of the document's markup exceeds 10 kilobytes

Size means number of bytes, not number of characters, right?

Does "size of the document's markup" mean "the markup document's 
length"? It could also mean "count only tags".


3.21 STYLE_SHEETS_USE

> If the CSS Style contains at-rules (other than the @media at-rule), properties, or values that are not recognized as being valid CSS Level 1 2.3.9 Validity, warn

in connection with (2.3.9)

> CSS
> 
>     A resource is considered a valid CSS resource if it conforms to the grammar defined in [CSS], Appendix B

The CSS grammar (used for the definitio validity) does not define 
allowed at-rules, properties and values.

Add () around the link "2.3.9 Validity".

-- 
Johannes Koch
BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2007 10:43:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT