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

Re: Validator

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:31:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4A96B4FE.9090609@eunet.no>
To: Gavin Landon <gavin.landon@gmail.com>
CC: Public MWBP <public-bpwg@w3.org>

 > 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.

Gavin, you are very right. You have all my sympathy.  When W3C decided 
to embark in mobile back in 2005, they should have shown some spine and 
declared that mobile devices should abide by the (X)HTML/HTTP specs and 
standards that already existed. And if a device did not support those 
properly, it was the device problem, not W3C's problem.

Things went a bit differently, though. There was a political decision 
internally in W3C to jump into mobile at all costs. For this reason, 
after endless discussion, a compromise among all the positions involved 
(except the position of developers, I dare say) was achieved with the BP 
guidelines that Francois mentioned (and on top of which the mobile 
checker is built). Parts of the BP rules encourage hacking for sake of 
making a site work in mobile (notably: "work around deficient 
implementations" and "exploit device capabilities"). Other parts demand 
adherence to XHTML Basic 1.1 purity ("VALID_MARKUP").  Others part still 
are totally deplete of sense ("don't use pixels to express measure", 
"thematic consistency").

The general problem with W3C's BPs is that the rules are ambiguous, not 
very "actionable" and confusing. Virtually all developers ignore them 
because they offer limited value. Those who don't ignore them for 
whatever reason, end up being unhappy with them.

The day W3C will abandon this crazy idea of consensus for consensus' 
sake, and manage to enact a vision behind the specs they make will be a 
great day for them.

Luca

PS: one final note: we don't need rules to tell if a client is mobile. 
We have those. But device manufacturers will lie and claim that their 
devices can handle the full web. Hence the confusion.

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.
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 16:32:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:02 UTC