Re: Validation against XHTML MP 1.2 not done by the checker

 >  2. apart from the "start" attribute on the "ol" element (and maybe one
 > or two additional attributes?), XHTML Basic 1.1 is a superset of XHTML
 > MP 1.2.

see:

http://dev.mobi/article/comparison-xhtml-mobile-profile-and-xhtml-basic

and

http://www.w3.org/2007/09/dtd-comparison.html

Jo

On 16/07/2008 12:07, Francois Daoust wrote:
> 
> Thanks Abel,
> 
> Abel Rionda wrote:
>> Hi Francois,
>>
>> It is fixed now (We attach a pair of files because strangely we don't
>> have access to the CVS... "connection refused by the server").
> 
> Well, it seems to be fixed, I saw you committed the changes ;-)
> 
> While re-thinking about it, I realized that, whilst we need to validate 
> against both DTDs, the detailed report the checker should return should 
> be against one and only DTD. mobileOK doesn't prescribe the DTD to use 
> (it only prescribes the fact that a FAIL is returned).
> 
> I felt it made more sense to always return errors against the XHTML 
> Basic 1.1 DTD because:
>  1. we don't validate the page against XHTML MP 1.2 when it is valid 
> against XHTML Basic 1.1
>  2. apart from the "start" attribute on the "ol" element (and maybe one 
> or two additional attributes?), XHTML Basic 1.1 is a superset of XHTML 
> MP 1.2.
> 
> I updated the code consequently.
> 
> I also included a note in HTTPXHTMLResource.java to point out that 
> exceptions thrown by the SAX parser are ignored for the moment. I don't 
> know when such exceptions are thrown, provided they are. But ignoring 
> such exceptions means that the checker will continue its execution as 
> though the page was fully validated (and will only return markup errors 
> encountered when the exception was thrown).
> 
> 
>>
>> Regarding a possible call today, we suggest cancelling it because we
>> haven't had too much time to work on the last bugs reported by you [1].
>> Meanwhile we can use the mailing list.
> 
> OK.
> 
> As you probably noticed, I spent some time digging up in the code to 
> debug it.
> There remains bugs, but no "blocking" bugs AFAICT (at least for the time 
> being).
> 
> I still haven't updated the online checker, but should do so in a near 
> future. I keep you updated.
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Jul/0056
>> .html
>> Regards,
>>
>> Abel.
>>
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org] En nombre de Francois
>> Daoust
>> Enviado el: martes, 15 de julio de 2008 18:36
>> Para: public-mobileok-checker
>> Asunto: Validation against XHTML MP 1.2 not done by the checker
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just committed the test:
>>   CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT 21
>>
>> It's a valid XHTML MP 1.2 page, which is not a valid XHTML Basic 1.1 
>> (the only way to do that, AFAICT, is by using a "start" attribute on 
>> an "ol" element. There may be other ways, but the thing is: it is
>> possible...).
>>
>> The checker returns an error CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT-6 because it seems 
>> it only validates the page against the XHTML Basic 1.1 DTD. The page 
>> should be mobileOK though.
>>
>> Francois.
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 11:18:48 UTC