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

RE: mOK response proposal

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:01:34 +0000
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B43BC551@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>, <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>




Please note that the text:

> "Note that forms with method get are permissible in documents under
> test, but must not be checked in case posting caused unwanted side
> effects such as the addition of unwanted records to a database."

Contains a typo and should say

> "Note that forms with method _POST_ are permissible in documents under
> test, but must not be checked in case posting caused unwanted side
> effects such as the addition of unwanted records to a database."

i.e. if a form has method GET it will be tested and if it has method
POST it will not. As Sean says we have not said exactly what you should
do by way of testing for method GET and will discuss clarifying it in
the group.

Thanks
Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-bpwg-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Owen
> Sent: 22 June 2007 17:56
> To: public-wai-ert@w3.org; public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: mOK response proposal
> 
> 
> The draft just says:
> 
> "Note that forms with method get are permissible in documents under
> test, but must not be checked in case posting caused unwanted side
> effects such as the addition of unwanted records to a database."
> 
> Yes we have not said exactly how to handle a form. This at least needs
> clarification. I had imagined that one would do whatever a browser
> does if you were to merely submit the form. A parameter would be
> created for every input/textarea, and those with a value in the
> "value" attribute (or a body, in the case of textarea), would take on
> that value.
> 
> I think it deserves a little more discussion whether it's worthwhile
> to specify that tests should even bother with forms at all. I suppose
> the idea is test everything you reasonably can.
> 
> Like all comments, I'll add these to our list of last call comments
> for an "official" reply.
> 
> Sean
> 
> On 6/22/07, Jon Ribbens <ertwg@sitemorse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:52:41PM +0200, Johannes Koch wrote:
> > > apart from the GET vs. POST typo issue, Jon mentioned:
> > >
> > > >Well, theoretically since GET is idempotent you can safely try,
for
> > > >example, simply submitting the form with its default values.
> > >
> > > I may have missed it, but does the mobileOK draft describe how to
> handle
> > > GET forms? Only use default values?
> >
> > It's very vague. 'Use default values' is my own opinion (and is what
> > we do in the web-checking tool our company provides). Section 2.3.8
> > might possibly be intended to mean that the URL in the 'action'
> > attribute should be taken and fetched unchanged with no form
parameters
> > at all, but that would be highly inadvisable (there is essentially
no
> > other circumstance, other than a mobileOK test, where that URL would
> > be requested).
> >
> > I feel that clarification of this is quite important.
> >
> > I have CC'ed this message to public-bpwg-comments, as today is
> > apparently the last day for comments.
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 20:25:53 GMT

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