Edit comment LC-1598 for Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group

Quick access to LC-1578 LC-1579 LC-1580 LC-1581 LC-1582 LC-1583 LC-1585 LC-1586 LC-1587 LC-1588 LC-1589 LC-1591 LC-1592 LC-1593 LC-1594 LC-1596 LC-1597 LC-1598 LC-1599 LC-1600 LC-1601 LC-1602 LC-1604 LC-1605 LC-1606 LC-1607 LC-1608 LC-1609 LC-1610 LC-1611 LC-1612 LC-1613 LC-1614 LC-1615 LC-1616 LC-1617 LC-1618 LC-1619 LC-1620 LC-1621 LC-1622 LC-1623 LC-1624 LC-1625 LC-1626 LC-1627 LC-1628 LC-1629 LC-1630 LC-1631 LC-1632 LC-1633 LC-1634 LC-1635 LC-1636 LC-1637 LC-1638 LC-1639 LC-1640 LC-1641 LC-1642 LC-1643 LC-1644 LC-1645 LC-1646 LC-1647 LC-1648 LC-1649 LC-1650 LC-1651 LC-1652 LC-1653 LC-1654 LC-1655 LC-1656 LC-1658 LC-1659 LC-1660 LC-1661 LC-1662 LC-1663 LC-1664

Comment LC-1598

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Jo Rabin <>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeW3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 Abstract Status of this Document Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Levels of mobileOK 1.1.1 mobileOK Basic 1.1.2 mobileOK 1.1.3 Out of Scope 1.1.4 Beyond mobileOK 1.2 Applicability 1.3 Claiming mobileOK conformance 2 Conformance 2.1 Validity of the Tests 2.2 Testing Outcomes 2.3 Conduct of Tests 2.3.1 Order of Tests 2.3.2 HTTP Request 2.3.3 HTTP Response 2.3.4 CSS Style 2.3.5 Included Resources 2.3.6 Included Stylesheet Resources 2.3.7 Visible Linked Resources 3 mobileOK Basic Tests 3.1 AUTO_REFRESH (partial) and REDIRECTION 3.2 CACHING 3.3 CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE 3.4 CONTENT_FORMAT_SUPPORT 3.5 DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE 3.6 EXTERNAL_RESOURCES 3.7 GRAPHICS_FOR_SPACING 3.8 IMAGE_MAPS 3.9 IMAGES_RESIZING and IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE 3.10 LINK_TARGET_FORMAT 3.11 MEASURES 3.12 MINIMIZE 3.13 NO_FRAMES 3.14 NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES (partial) 3.15 OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT (partial) 3.16 PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT 3.17 PAGE_TITLE (partial) 3.18 POP_UPS 3.19 PROVIDE_DEFAULTS (partial) 3.20 SCROLLING (partial) 3.21 STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT (partial) 3.22 STYLE_SHEETS_USE 3.23 TABLES_ALTERNATIVES 3.24 TABLES_LAYOUT (partial) 3.25 TABLES_NESTED 3.26 VALID_MARKUP A Acknowledgements (Non-Normative) B References (Non-Normative) C Best Practices' Relation to mobileOK Tests (Non-Normative)
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

if the character-encoding is specified in more than one way and the values are not all the same

means that we will fail if there is a content-type header of text/html and a meta element with text/html; charset="UTF-8" which is not what we want.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: I don't see what Jo is driving at here. The test seems clear enough to me - you can declare the character encoding in one of 3 ways. If you use more than one way, the character encoding declaration must be the same (i.e. you can't say it's utf-8 in one method and iso-8859-1 in aother way). I think this comes down to implementation. A tester that took an HTTP header of Content-Type: text/html and, when comparing it with a meta tag declaring content-type to be "text/html; charset=utf-8 decided that these were inconsistent - wouldn't get a lot of use!

Resolution: Propose resolve No (leave this as is). Actually, resolve yes. Editors to effect the change.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)