- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:47:17 -0400
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Muchos kudos to Dom for organizing these threads that do need to get tied up so we can finally finish mobileOK Basic. I would also like to agree on these on Thursday. On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > ISSUE-230: OBJECTS_AND_SCRIPTS needs to address <object> with > There are 3 options on the table: > 1. Ignore the bug in our current algorithm as it affects only a > limited number of real documents (and leave it for the next > version mobileOK basic) > 2. Use the new proposed algorithm > 3. remove object parsing from mobileOK basis on the basis that > it is too complex > > My feeling is that proposal #2 is probably the best road. > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/230 Agree with Dom. > ISSUE-231: MINIMIZE should take into account whitespace in CSS > 1. we include CSS white space in the test > 2. we leave that for a next version of mobileOK basic > > Given that mobileOK basic 1.0 isn't specifically broken with the > current test, and to avoid having too many substantive changes > in the document, I would suggest we go with option #2. > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/231 Agree, while this is easier to adjust than the last issue, and has a bigger impact, it also does not represent something that is broken. On that basis I also strongly favor not continuing the change the spec. > ISSUE-234: Should Objects Tasted count towards the overall page weight > Again, two options: > 1. we add that algorithm in our calculation of PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT > 2. we keep it for the next version of mobileOK basic (in the > basis that the test is not broken) > > It's not clear that there is any consensus on the topic - I > would personally opt for option #2 again because that's what has > been picked for the two previous ones. (more seriously, because > I think mobileOK basic needs more to be finished than perfect) > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/234 Agree for the same reason. > ISSUE-240: > Two proposals have been made (see a pattern here?): > 1. We remove the test for validity to the declared DTD (on the > basis that it doesn't add anything directly relevant to the goal > of mobileOK basic) > 2. We replace it to have it effective only when the declared DTD > matches a well-known DTD (with an explicit list of DTDs) > > There seems to be a mild preference for #2; for sake of not > having to dwelve in the details of SYSTEM ID, PUBLIC ID, > equivalent URIs of well-known DTDs, I would personally suggest > #1 (shocking!). > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/240 Agree. While I am a real stickler about pushing validity, I agree, this actually doesn't add much value beyond requiring valid XHTML. Noting that you sent in a valid -- or invalid -- FOAF file just doesn't matter.
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 21:47:53 UTC