RE: mobileOK basic issues

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sean Owen
> Sent: 15 April 2008 22:47
> To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Cc: public-bpwg
> Subject: Re: mobileOK basic issues
> 
> 
> 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.
Agree it needs rewriting, but which of the proposals under that ISSUE do
we intend to adopt.

> 
> 
> >  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.
agree

> 
> 
> >  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.

I'm afraid I don't agree as I think that this could be a major
contributor to a mobileOK site providing a broken and unreasonably
expensive experience. At least this should be a warn.

> 
> 
> >  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.

Agree.

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 10:58:15 UTC