Re: ERT WG comments on mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 LCWD of 25 May, 2007

 Dear Shadi Abou-Zahra ,

The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the W3C mobileOK Basic
Tests 1.0 (2nd Last Call) published on 25 May 2007. Thank you for having
taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070928/.

Please review it carefully and let us know if you agree with it or not
before 19 October 2007. In case of disagreement, you are requested to
provide a specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working
Group. If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the
opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the
Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in the
W3C Recommendation Track.

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
Michael(tm) Smith
W3C Staff Contacts

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/467D1CEE.5050201@w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/


=====

Your comment on 2.3.10 White Space:
> COMMENT B.10:
> - comment nature: [clarification]
> - location: 2.3.10 White space
> - current wording: "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"
> - suggested revision: Should   entities (#xA0) be considered?
> - rationale: This entity is frequently used (and abused) and having a 
> look at the related test (3.15, 3.17 and maybe 3.12) it makes even more
> 
> sense


Working Group Resolution:
No change is required as nbsp is used by authors to indicate non-redundant
white space, that it has semantic content. Detecting whether its abused or
nonsensical gets difficult and is beyond the scope of the current test.

----

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 17:21:18 UTC