W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > January to March 2007

Comments on WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130

From: Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:11:43 +0000
To: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070306131142.GH6799@iki.fi>

I amusingly discovered this by trying out http://ready.mobi/ on some of
my mobile pages I wrote for my thesis http://iki.fi/hendry/msc.pdf a few
years ago. They scored fair.

Though has anyone tried http://ready.mobi on http://ready.mobi?  :)

I like how ready.mobi gives suggestions for .mobi domains to squat. I
can't make this stuff up!

I see you're trying to create some sort of Mobile Web content validation

First off, why the application/xhtml+xml? Do you have any idea about the
problems with this? When will you see the light with HTML?

I would love to know of a single mobile phone sporting a conforming XML
processor. :)

Why not support text/plain in CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT? :)

PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT size is slowly becoming a less of an issue, it's more
latency with mobiles. Can't you see you're writing a document doomed to
be become obsolete?

Many issues here (SCROLLING, POP_UPS etc.) could be handled by a smart
UA (and proxy esp for imgs). Telling authors they can't have tables more
that 2x2 seems a little daft. You will risk content developers creating
separate mobile device targeted Web pages.  Is that what you want to see

So many of these failures could be warnings IMO, in order not to scare
content creators.

Anyway it would be good if some mobile developing hints were just
implemented by a normal W3C HTML validator like http://validator.w3.org/
or Unicorn. Anyone working on that? Banging out this bureaucratic
document "W3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0" seems a waste of time and

You need to evolve faster.

Best wishes,
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 13:12:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:09 UTC