W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > April to June 2008

Clarifications on HTTP Response tests

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:44:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4863FF93.7080002@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org


The following comments apply to the treatment that a mobileOK checker 
should apply to HTTP responses:

* About the treatment of HTTP Status 401:
   - Why should tests be applied to the response body of such an HTTP 
response? The body will never be touched by any browser during the first 
pass (when authentication credentials have not already been sent) 
AFAICT. Besides, it wouldn't make any sense to display the resource if 
it's an included image for instance. It's perfectly normal to count the 
response in EXTERNAL_RESPONSE and PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT, but I suggest 
updating the "Carry out tests on the response" to "Do not carry out 
tests on the response", especially given the fact that the tests FAIL 
when credentials are wrong (and so there's no need to test the response 
body anyway even for the second pass)
   - "Re-request the resource using authentication information" could 
deserve some clarification. What if the checker doesn't have any 
authentication information? I would clarify this with "Re-request the 
resource using authentication information if available or FAIL" (where 

* HTTP responses and linked resources:
I understand the LINK_TARGET_FORMAT test as willing to return WARNs to 
the user on linked resources, and to never return any FAIL. However, 
there are several cases in the tests that should be carried by the 
checker for HTTP responses that return a FAIL, even when the resource is 
a linked resource:
   - "If an HTTP request does not result in a valid HTTP response [...], 
   - 1 case in "If the response is an HTTPS response"
   - 2 cases in "If the HTTP status indicates redirection"
   - "If the HTTP status represents failure (4xx), other than 404 or a 
request for authentication (e.g. 401), FAIL"

I guess one may argue that LINK_TARGET_FORMAT may return a FAIL message. 
The last point still stands in that case: is a linked resource that 
returned a 406 Not Acceptable status supposed to trigger a FAIL? I think 
I should be allowed to include links to external resources that are not 
able to serve content to the mobileOK checker in a page without losing 
the possibility for the page to be mobileOK. I would relax the last 
check to state:
"If the HTTP status represents failure (4xx), other than 404 or a 
request for authentication (e.g. 401):
   If the response relates to a request for a linked resource (see 2.4.7 
Linked Resources), continue with the test (see 3.10 LINK_TARGET_FORMAT ) 
and warn
   Otherwise (i.e. for included resources), FAIL"

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 20:45:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC