Edit comment LC-1701 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-1701

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

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:

> * Check for consistency with HTTP headers, as follows:
> For each meta element with an http-equiv attribute:
> If a matching HTTP response header does not exist, warn
> If a matching HTTP response header exists but its value differs
> from the content attribute value, warn

These two should not apply at all to Refresh as Refresh is not used
on the HTTP level in the real world. On the other hand, they should
both be failures for the cache control because caching proxies should
be able to work on the HTTP level without looking inside payload. For
XML media types, the meta charset is always bogus so both cases
should fail to avoid people depending on the bogus meta charset. For
text/html, the case where the real HTTP header and the meta charset
disagree should be a failure, because the disagreement is a symptom
of something being wrong in the content production or serving process.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: Let me defer on this to a more considered last call comment reply. I think you have a good point here, that you want to be stricter on this to really discourage ever relying on a different value in <meta>.

Resolution: Our experience shows that Refresh is indeed used as an HTTP header. We note under CACHING that using meta http-equiv is undesirable for the reasons you state. We have taken the view that it is undesirable to FAIL implementations that cannot change their http headers but that make some attempt to indicate their preference using meta http-equiv. Your point about meta and charsets we believe is reflected under the rules specified at 3.3 character encoding.

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