Edit comment LC-1695 for Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group

Quick access to LC-1690 LC-1691 LC-1692 LC-1693 LC-1694 LC-1695 LC-1696 LC-1697 LC-1698 LC-1699 LC-1700 LC-1701 LC-1702 LC-1703 LC-1704 LC-1705 LC-1706 LC-1707 LC-1708 LC-1709 LC-1710 LC-1711 LC-1712 LC-1713 LC-1714 LC-1715 LC-1716 LC-1717 LC-1718 LC-1719 LC-1720 LC-1721 LC-1722 LC-1723 LC-1724 LC-1725 LC-1726 LC-1727 LC-1728 LC-1729 LC-1730 LC-1731 LC-1732 LC-1733 LC-1734 LC-1735 LC-1736 LC-1737 LC-1738 LC-1739 LC-1740 LC-1741 LC-1742 LC-1743 LC-1744 LC-1745 LC-1746 LC-1747 LC-1748 LC-1749 LC-1750 LC-1751 LC-1752 LC-1753 LC-1754 LC-1755 LC-1756 LC-1757 LC-1758 LC-1759 LC-1760 LC-1761 LC-1762 LC-1763 LC-1764 LC-1765 LC-1766 LC-1767 LC-1781 LC-1782 LC-1783 LC-1786

Comment LC-1695

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeW3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 /**/ code { font-... W3C mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 W3C Working Draft 25 May 2007 Abstract Status of this Document Table of Contents Appendices 1 Introduction 1.1 Levels of mobileOK 1.1.1 mobileOK Basic 1.1.2 mobileOK Pro 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 Meta http-equiv Elements 2.3.5 CSS Style 2.3.6 Included Resources 2.3.7 Included Style Sheet Resources 2.3.8 Visible Linked Resources 2.3.9 Validity 2.3.10 White Space 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 and VALID_MARKUP 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 STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT (partial) 3.21 STYLE_SHEETS_USE 3.22 TABLES_ALTERNATIVES 3.23 TABLES_LAYOUT (partial) 3.24 TABLES_NESTED A Acknowledgements(Non-Normative) B References(Non-Normative) BestPractices CSS GIF JPEG POWDER RFC2617 Techniques UTF-8 utf8_perl WCAG XHTMLBasic11 XHTMLModularization XML10 XML11 C Relationship between Best Practices and 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:

Sixth, in 3.10 LINK_TARGET_FORMAT, it states:

> If the |Content-Type| header value of the HTTP response is not
> consistent (determined in the same way as specified in *3.3
> CHARACTER_ENCODING_SUPPORT and CHARACTER_ENCODING_USE*
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/#test_character_encoding_support>)
> with the |Accept-Charset| header in *2.3.2 HTTP Request*
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070525/#http_request>,
> *warn*

This should be a FAIL condition. Character set mismatches are very
undesirable (especially from an i18n perspective) and will create
significant hindrances for most non-English users, whose languages have
accents or even do not use our alphabet at all.

If you want to support ISO-8859-1 in some way to make it easier for
existing sites to server with the mobileOK label, ISO-8859-1 should
simply be processed appropriately and added to the Accept-Charset header.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: From my reading of RFC 2616, 14.2, it's allowed to send back a character encoding which was not listed in Accept-Charset. It's not desirable, and this triggers a warning. Why not a fail? This test covers external resources, which are possibly outside the author's control. Some felt strongly that one shouldn't FAIL (maybe only temporarily) on account of an external resource. There are arguments both ways here, but that's why this is considered a warning and not a failure.

Resolution: This test covers external resources, which are possibly outside the author's control. Some members of the group felt strongly that one shouldn't FAIL on account of an external resource. Whether the resource displays usefully is a difficult question for a machine test to answer, and it may be that checking this aspect becomes a mobileOK Pro test.

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