Re: Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 ( LC-1859)

 Dear Laurens Holst ,

The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the W3C mobileOK Basic
Tests 1.0 (Third Last Call) published on 28 Sep 2007. Thank you for having
taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-bpwg-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 31 October
2007. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
Michael(tm) Smith
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/46FE92F8.4070403@students.cs.uu.nl
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070928/


=====

Your comment on 2.4.2 HTTP Request:
> Jo Rabin schreef:
> >
> > Laurens
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your further reply on this. Ref RFC2616
> >
> >
> >
> > Accept headers *can* be used to specify certain media
> >
> > types which are acceptable for the response. …
> >
> >
> >
> > Not “should” or “must”.
> >
> 
> I think you’re misinterpreting that sentence, it “can” be used
> because
> the Accept header is optional. It does not imply the Accept header can
> be used differently than described, and that you can just put any kind
> of nonsense in there and still expect it to work.
> 
> > And if the server needs to respond with a 3xx, 4xx or 5xx response
> > code, in principle it would not know how to do that if the request
> did
> > not contain a range of content types.
> >
> 
> I don’t understand how that would be. Different content types are
> just
> different representations of data. A single resource can be
> represented
> by several content types. If you’re going to indicate to the server
> that
> you accept certain representations, then the server can send any of
> them. However regardless of the content type, the server knows
> perfectly
> well when a response of 3xx, 4xx or 5xx is needed for that resource
> (e.g. when it has moved or is unavailable). They’re two separate
> things,
> and unrelated.
> 
> I do not understand the resistance against just sending the correct
> Accept headers. That is how the protocol is designed, and it’s also
> how
> browsers implement it.
> 
> Also, you’re completely glossing over my statement that sending
> incorrect Accept headers *breaks* servers which correctly handle
> content
> negotiation, because the accepted content types are not correctly
> indicated by the test. Thus, with this test the W3C would force web
> sites to not use content negotiation if they want to get your label
> for
> ‘correctness’.


Working Group Resolution (LC-1859):
Behavior as specified does not
contravene HTTP. In practice, it is consistent with most mobile UAs
behavior and is desirable on practical grounds for a tester to emulate.
It should not be inferred from the way the checker behaves that real
browsers either should or should not behave that way.

----

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 11:38:54 UTC