Edit comment LC-1605 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-1605

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:

So, given that the documents are supposed to be XML, and given that we
can refer to various STRONGLY RECOMMENDED clauses, should we insist on
the XML declaration being present and specifying an explicit encoding if
it is not explicitly set in the Content-Type header?

i.e. how much would we lose if we removed the META provision in 3.3?

Well, one possible answer is that if the content is delivered as
text/html then it is assumed not to be XML and the XML header may be
ignored. In this case having the META there is a kind of belt and
braces, though in practice it may be meaningless.

On reflection I think that in the case of text/html and no charset
parameter - we should check for BOTH the XML declaration and the META.
In the case of application/*+xml we should insist only on the XML
declaration and ignore the META.

Oh dear, this one won't lie down quietly.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: (srowen) I'm not opposed to a change here but it is tangled, there's no clear right answer. I mildly favor letting this stand as-is until practice proves it's insufficient. But, probably worth discussion.

Resolution: Nous vous proposons: If the character encoding is not explicitly specified in the HTTP header: 1. then it MUST be specified in an XML declaration. 2. if the content is delivered as text/html then it MUST in addition be specified in a META HTTP-EQUIV

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