W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Problems with the mobileOK validator

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:31:38 -0500
To: Kevin Ghadyani <saturn2888@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <04FD2507-B170-4C14-B7EC-7B6132426624@w3.org>
Cc: site-comments@w3.org

On 13 Jul 2009, at 2:53 AM, Kevin Ghadyani wrote:

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

Hello Kevin,

Can you send your comment to the mobileOK list: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org


  _ Ian

> 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 device.
> But my CSS file is only 4 entries that properly validate:
> p.mobile {
> 	margin:0 auto;
> 	width:auto;
> 	text-align:center;
> 	color:#adadad;
> }
> p.mobileleft{
> 	margin:0 auto;
> 	width:auto;
> 	text-align:left;
> 	color:#adadad;
> }
> p.mobileinfochoices {
> 	margin:0 auto;
> 	width:auto;
> 	text-align:center;
> 	font-weight:bold;
> 	color:#adadad;
> }
> h1 {
> 	margin:0 auto;
> 	width: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.
> 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 and reading this over,
> -- Kevin Ghadyani

Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 13:31:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:40 UTC