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

Re: mobileOK basic issues

From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:47:17 -0400
Message-ID: <e920a71c0804151447v4048f7ecj61cbe8f603726859@mail.gmail.com>
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 &lt;object&gt; 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:56 UTC