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

Re: MobileOK review

From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:39:34 +0200
Message-ID: <46768B16.9030003@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Carlos Iglesias schrieb:
> 2.3.10 White Space
> "Several tests refer to white space. White space has the same definition in this document as in XML. For XML 1.0 [XML10] it is defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-common-syn  as being:
> S ::= (#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+ i.e. the characters SP, TAB, CR and LF"
> - Should &nbsp; entities be considered? Having a look at the related test (3.12, 3.15, 3.17) it makes sense.

A series of #x20, #x9, #xD, #xA characters can be normalized into one 
#x20 character, #xA0 characters cannot. So for test 3.12 I think it's 
good not to count #xA0 as (extraneous) white space.

> - What happen with CSS2? It's implicitly allowed as there is no test that fail when using CSS2 properties, even referenced at 3.20. Should these properties also be checked? If so, other test may also be reviewed as they are affected (e.g. see comment #6 at [2])

Test 3.4 fails for content that is not valid CSS with validity being 
defined as conforming to the CSS 1 grammar (syntax).

Test 3.21 seems to use the phrase "valid CSS 1" in a sense that is not 
just grammar conformance.

So right now, CSS 2 that conforms to the CSS 1 grammar passes 3.4, but 
you'll get a lot of warnings, because the grammar does not define 
properties and values (3.21) :-)


   @import "foo.css" handheld;

would fail 3.4 because of the media type, which is not part of the CSS 1 
grammar, while the rule should be considered when collecting the 
"Included Resources" (2.3.6).

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 Monday, 18 June 2007 13:40:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:55 UTC