W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Validator

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:06:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4A963E95.1040709@w3.org>
To: Gavin Landon <gavin.landon@gmail.com>
CC: Public MWBP <public-bpwg@w3.org>

I can't be sure but it looks as if you're seeing the mobileOK checker as 
a markup validation tool. It isn't. It's a tool that applies a series of 
tests that, if passed, mean the URI is very likely to return at least a 
functional user experience when accessed on mobile devices.

The tests are detailed in [1]. Valid markup is just one of the (20 odd) 

And we certainly do not expect everyone to have different domains and 
pages for mobile and desktop. Quite the reverse in fact. See the One Web 
section of the Mobile Web Best Practices document [2], for example.



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/

Gavin Landon wrote:
> I'm going to jump a little off subject, but I'm unable to hold back
> anymore.. lol.
> Markup Validation Service "MVS"
> vs
> mobileOK Checker "MC"
> They don't follow the same rules.   Seems the mobile version is more
> complicated and in a lot of ways, for no reason.   I have a mobile site,
> which validates with MVS, but has a 49/100 with MC.  I've tested my domain
> with many browsers, both on desktops and mobile devices and I haven't run
> into any issues.   Soon as I start making changes to work with the MC, it
> causes issues with MVS.   I'm assuming it's expected that everyone have a
> different domain/pages for mobile vs desktops, but why?   Why should people
> have too with the technology that exists with rules that are already in
> place?   Example, I have style sheets that has an ASP extension so it can be
> dynamic, but MC doesn't like this.  It wants a css extensions on the file,
> why?   This information is coming from the file in proper css format, it
> shouldn't matter what the extension is.  It's type has been set as a
> text/css, so all browsers should know how to handle it.
> As an engineer/architect, I require structure, because it works.  Sometimes
> you have to build a road around a mountain.  It may take a little longer to
> drive it, but it still works.  However, when you build a mall on top of a
> house, they both will eventually collapse and/or no one will use either of
> them.   A good analogy is like changing a cars engine, because there's new
> spark plugs available for it.   The Internet is the engine driving us to a
> greater future.   Mobile devices should be following the rules that are in
> place, not change the Internet for the mobile devices.  Anyone can make a
> light version of their domain to display more clearly on a mobile device
> using the existing rules.   We need rules that websites can clearly pick out
> if the device talking to them is Mobile or not.  That's a rule that I don't
> see anyone coming up with and if it exists, no one is using it, hints the
> mall...   Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't have new rules for mobile
> devices, I'm just saying we shouldn't remove existing rules that work
> without mobile.  This is clearly the case in the single example I mentioned
> above.


Phil Archer
W3C Mobile Web Initiative

Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 08:07:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC