Antw: MobileOK review

Hi all!


-------------------------------------------
Mag. Reinhard Ruemer
Universitaet Linz
Institut Integriert Studieren
Altenbergerstrasse 69, A-4040 Linz
Tel.: +43 (0)732 2468 1273
E-Mail: reinhard.ruemer@jku.at
WWW: http://www.integriert-studieren.jku.at
-------------------------------------------


>>> "Carlos Iglesias" <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> schrieb am
Mo, Jun 11,
2007 um  1:22 pm in Nachricht
<09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190224712D@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>:

> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> A few comments more on mOK LCWD (25 May 2007)
> 
> 
> 2.3.10 White Space
> 
> "Several tests refer to white space. White space has the same
definition in 
> this document as in XML. For XML 1.0 [XML10] it is defined in 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC- xml/#sec- common- syn  as being:
> 
> S ::= (#x20 | #x9 | #xD | #xA)+ i.e. the characters SP, TAB, CR and
LF"
> 
> -  Should &nbsp; entities be considered? Having a look at the related
test 
> (3.12, 3.15, 3.17) it makes sense.
> 

according to [3] &nbsp; is Unicode #x160


> 
> 3.11 MEASURES
> 
> "For each property in the CSS Style whose value is a numeric measure
of 
> length stated together with a unit
>    If the value is non- zero and the unit is not "em" or "ex"..."
> 
> -  Why has been % left out? it's not considered an unit?

It says "numeric measure of length". % is a measure of ratio. What i
miss is px and pt as "numeric measure of length"


> -  The current wording could give the impression that numeric
measures without 
> units are allowed, which in general is not a good idea with some
exceptions. 
> Although this issue could be already covered by CSS validation,
redundancy 
> could be helpfull for the shake of completeness in this test as
"mobileOK 
> tests are intentionally expressed in an independent way..." (see
comment #16 
> at [1])

I think the wording of this test needs more clarification


> 
> Extract from comment #11 at [1]
>> There are other CSS properties where px values may be allowed as the

>> background- position or the outline- width.
> Working Group Resolution:
> We agree with the basic point but we will address it in the next
phase of 
> the Best Practices document instead.

see above


> 
> -  There is at least a property (background- position), but may be
more 
> depending on how they manage CSS2 properties (see next point), that
should be 
> allowed (admitted by the group) and is currently been left out. I
don't see 
> any reason to leave it out as the changes required are minimal, and
more 
> important, because as currently defined this test could produce a
fail 
> outcome when it should be a pass.
> 
> -  What happen with CSS2? It's implicitly allowed as there is no test
that 
> fail when using CSS2 properties, even referenced at 3.20. Should
these 
> properties also be checked? If so, other test may also be reviewed as
they 
> are affected (e.g. see comment #6 at [2])
> 

As far as I see it, the document speaks only about CSS Level 1. Also in
the References, there is only CSS Level 1 mentioned. I think this needs
more clarification.


> 
> 3.18 POP_UPS
> 
> -  What about JS popups? (window.open)
> 
> 
> Typos / Editing
> 
> 3.6 -  Why is the first condition, "Note that if an HTTP request is 
> unsuccessful while conducting this test, the result is FAIL", out of
the 
> general algorithm? This way could be easily leave out.

This looks like a general pre-condition to me.


> 3.13 -  Apparently there is a missing "an": "...or _an_ object..."

Yep, seems so!


> 3.19 -  "some value" is still there in one place instead of the
previously 
> suggested selected

Yes, right.

> 3.21 -  Shouldn't be the PASS rule ("If there is no CSS Style, PASS")
the 
> first of the algorithm in the shake of simplicity?

This might indeed look better. I thing if possible, all algorithms
should be worked over to sort the results. Firstly all PASS-rules then
all WARN-rules and then the FAIL-rules

> 
> 
> [1] -  [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- wai-
ert/2007Jun/0021.html]
> [2] -  [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- wai-
ert/2007Jun/0001.html]

[3] - http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200009/msg00050.html

Best,
Reinhard

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2007 13:17:15 UTC