Re: mobileOK validation logic - jar file?

 > Yes, you are right. As my colleague Miguel said, the solution for your
 > integration problem is to extend HTTPClient library to accept local
 > files. Unfortunately, we do not have much available time to work on this
I think that we also need to consider what happens to tests for HTTP 
behaviour - since in this case there is no HTTP behaviour. As mobileOK 
stands you must either pass or fail a test, since you can't pass a test 
for HTTP behavior if no HTTP is present presumably you must fail?

Jo

On 10/12/2008 08:59, Abel Rionda wrote:
> Hi Yeliz,
> 
>> 1. send local HTML file to mobileOK
>> 2. send a DOM object  to mobileOK
>> 3. get HTML file from mobileOK
> 
>> I am not sure about the feasibility of these options. As far as I can  
>> tell from the source code and also from the documentation on CVS, we  
>> cannot do option 2 and option 3. Am I right?
> 
> Yes, you are right. As my colleague Miguel said, the solution for your
> integration problem is to extend HTTPClient library to accept local
> files. Unfortunately, we do not have much available time to work on this
> (besides it is a bit out of scope regarding mobileOK Basic Tests).
> Anyway, since checker code is open source you can extend it for this
> purpose and do not hesitate in asking any doubt you might have.
> 
> Regards,
> Abel.
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Yeliz Yesilada [mailto:yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk] 
> Enviado el: lunes, 08 de diciembre de 2008 8:32
> Para: Miguel Garcia
> CC: Abel Rionda; public-mobileok-checker@w3.org; Kentarou Fukuda; Yeliz
> Yesilada
> Asunto: Re: mobileOK validation logic - jar file?
> 
> Hi Miguel,
> 
> Thanks for your quick response. Please see my comments below.
> 
> On 5 Dec 2008, at 12:45, Miguel Garcia wrote:
>> You're right, Yeliz. Again there is a problem because differencies
>> between Linux and Windows and how they handle uris (specifically path
>> separators).
>>
>> Solve this problem is quite easy but fixing will be reveal another
>> issue.
> 
> I guess it would be good to fix this anyway as others who might be  
> interested in using this library might run into the same problem :)
> 
>> The checker doesn't handle local files, I mean that the
>> connection library we use to handle connections doesn't support the
>> file: protocol. MobileOk Basic requires the page is served by a HTTP
>> server in order to check some connection parameters so during design
>> there was no need to include a feature for analyzing local files.
>>
>> The connection library, HTTPClient, is extensible so it could be
>> "tricked" to accept file: connections but not sure how much work it  
>> will
>> take.
>>
>> If you tell me a bit how aDesigner and MobileOk tester are linked
>> together I could think about other solutions.
> 
> aDesigner has a validation infrastructure that allows you to extend  
> it and add new validation components. Users are then allowed to  
> specify in their preferences which validation component they would  
> like to use, for example WCAG 1.0, Section 508, IBM Accessibility  
> guidelines, etc. I have extended this so that the users can also  
> choose to validate their pages against mobileOK. However, since we  
> now give the URI to mobileOK tester, mobileOK creates its own HTTP  
> connection to the target URL, and parses and tests the resulting  
> HTML. On the other hand, other aDesigner omponents use HTML in IE  
> browser. So, in some cases, line/column numbers (which are also used  
> for visualisation) differ because they parse different HTML  
> documents. Therefore, we need to make sure that other aDesigner  
> components and mobileOK test the same page. I talked to Kentarou  
> (CC'ed here) who is one of the main developers of aDesigner and we  
> think there are three options for this.
> 
> 1. send local HTML file to mobileOK
> 2. send a DOM object  to mobileOK
> 3. get HTML file from mobileOK
> 
> I am not sure about the feasibility of these options. As far as I can  
> tell from the source code and also from the documentation on CVS, we  
> cannot do option 2 and option 3. Am I right?
> 
> If you need more information, please let me know.
> 
> Regards,
> Yeliz.
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 11:11:17 UTC