- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:52:15 +0000
- To: casays@yahoo.com
- CC: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
Some comments below On 11/11/2008 09:32, Eduardo Casais wrote: > a) HTML > > Section 4.2 states: > "In the following, proxies must check for > the presence of equivalent <meta http-equiv> > elements in HTML content, if the relevant > HTTP header is not present." > > This comes too short, as XHTML and WML content may > contain such a meta-tag as well. In the case of WML, > the presence of http-equiv attributes and their > processing is actually specified in the corresponding > standards (notably WAP-191-WML 19 February 2000, and > WAP-WML 16 June 1999). It may be worth expanding upon the point that by HTML content we mean any content in the HTML family, including XHTML but not including WML. I think WML is out of scope of this document - but it's worth having a discussion on that. > > b) Page components > > The http-equiv meta-tag is necessary because there are > situations where application developers cannot tailor > the HTTP header returned by the WWW server (e.g. shared > hosting). However, it must be clear that the meta-tag, > and the HTTP header field as well, apply to all components > of the page -- i.e. including images, style sheets, scripts, > and other dependent content. > > In effect: > 1. It does not make much sense not to transform the markup, > but to transform its components. > 2. Most of the dependent content (in fact everything > excluding HTML, XHTML, WML markup) has no way of > expressing the directive no-transform with a meta-tag > (e.g. a GIF image or a ringing tone). > 3. Much of these dependent components may not be identifiable > as mobile-optimized independently; hence, an HTTP request > accessing them after loading their enclosing markup may not > provide sufficient context for applying the heuristics in > the appendix (e.g. GIF/PNG/JPEG images). > Hence clause 3 under 4.1.5 and especially 4.1.5.4 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/081107#sec-sequence-of-requests For symmetry and clarity it would be worth putting a similar clause under 4.2 response. > > a) Link element > > Section 4.2.7 addresses the alternate "handheld" representation > for HTML markup. This is restrictive: > > 1. This should apply to XHTML as well. > 2. Ignored are external style sheets. see above ref "HTML" > > In the case of external style sheets, it is pretty clear that > those declared as > > <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="..." media="all"/> > <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="..." media="handheld"/> > > also refer to mobile-compatible, resp. mobile-optimized ones, > and should be handled accordingly. Mobile compatible and mobile optimized are not the same thing are they? > > > E.Casais > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 09:53:24 UTC