- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:58:17 +0100
- To: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: public-mobileok-checker@w3.org, Kentarou Fukuda <KENTAROU@jp.ibm.com>, Yeliz Yesilada <yeliz.yesilada@manchester.ac.uk>
Yeliz Yesilada wrote: [...] >> >> I need to check how you could get write access to the CVS project. >> I'll get back to you as soon as I know. > > OK, thanks. In short, I'll just need the names of the persons who need an account. If some of these persons already have a W3C member account, let me know as well. Send me a private message when you need the access. Account creation may take 7-10 days, depending on the availability of the systems team. [...] > We are trying to get familiar with the code, I am sure we will have > questions and subjects to discuss with the group, so we will become a > member of the list. If you feel some questions could better be answered in a call, I'd be happy to schedule it. Francois. > >> >> I personally think the feature is useful, in particular because >> authors usually start to write a page locally before they publish it >> on the Web, and could then start checking the page at this stage. >> >> However, as noted previously, some (and actually that's not only one >> or two) tests only apply to content delivered over HTTP. Other may >> apply only partially to non-HTTP content (PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT and >> EXTERNAL_RESOURCES for instance would not be able to count the size >> and number of potential HTTP redirects since there's no HTTP redirects >> in the file scheme). > > I agree, for a complete test, one needs to use the URI version. > >> IMO, that means: >> 1. that the Checker must never return a "you are mobileOK" message >> when run on a file. It would not be true. The message can be at best >> "all the mobileOK tests I could run on the file passed". >> 2. we need to be able to identify this situation in the moki schema. >> 3. we need to be able to identify subtests that cannot be run in part >> or completely in this situation e.g. by adding a new attribute to >> <result> elements such as run="[impossible,partial,complete]". > > Thanks for these suggestions. It seems like it will be good to first > categorise/group the tests based on these three attributes. > > Regards, > Yeliz. >
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 12:58:58 UTC