RE: [Fwd: MobileOK Validator Issues]

I think there may be an issue that we need to think about vis a vis mobileOK.

If you've made the effort to conform to a DTD and you do then you should get some kudos for that. If we've never heard of it then, well, it's unlikely to be a DTD that we know what to do with. So that is bad. 

So I wonder what the value, really, is of testing against a declared DTD? The reason it is there, if I remember correctly, is to deal with XHTML-MP. But we do, anyway, so this is perhaps a legacy issue.

Jo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-mobileok-checker-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mobileok-
> checker-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Sent: 11 March 2008 17:02
> To: Sean Owen
> Cc: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: MobileOK Validator Issues]
> 
> 
> Le lundi 10 mars 2008 à 11:27 -0400, Sean Owen a écrit :
> > There is a slightly larger problem here, that we would have a problem
> > on any DTD that we don't have a copy of, and there could be many. In
> > this case we should not fail, as we do now. I can change that.
> 
> FWIW, I remember that some people were not happy with the idea of
> downloading unknown DTDs from the Web; I personally would much prefer
> this to the current situation where we simply abort when encountering
> this. Maybe this should be a configurable option?
> 
> I think ideally, we would do as follow:
>  * if we know the SYSTEM ID and have it in cache, we use the cached
> version
>  * if we don't know the SYSTEM ID, but there is a PUBLIC ID that matches
> a well-known SYSTEM ID in cache, we use the cached version
>  * if we don't know the SYSTEM ID, there is no PUBLIC ID or we can't
> relate it to a known SYSTEM ID, we either download the DTD or FAIL
> (depending on the configuration option)
> 
> > And then I just remove the unused HTML 4 DTDs from the checker.
> 
> Makes sense; still, the question remains: how do we deal with documents
> in non-XML versions of HTML? We can't validate them with our existing
> infrastructure (and from what I've heard, I don't think there is a good
> Java SGML Validator available).
> 
> The problem is: if we get a valid HTML 4.01 document, at this time we
> would still say it fails on CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT-4.
> 
> (theoretically speaking, it is doable to create an HTML 4.01 document
> that is mobileOK, but the checker would not admit it as of today).
> 
> I can add a test case if that helps.
> 
> Dom
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 21:55:06 UTC