Edit comment LC-1726 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-1726

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Ben Cerbera Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>

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:

> If "HTML Basic" existed I think there would be a good argument to
> specify it instead.

Since text/html work has started again at W3C in the form of the HTMLWG,
perhaps an "HTML Basic" spec would now be feasible? Then again, the 1998
attempt at this [7] didn't take off, so reduced HTML was not the solution
even with devices *that* limited. And since current mobiles handle full HTML
websites, degrading content at the origin server seems ever more unnecessary
(the network can do this on-the-fly if it needs to be done).

Sincere thanks for taking the feedback from the new HTMLWG seriously. I too
hope HTMLWG will add more practical value to the W3C's Mobile Web Initiative
(MWI) [8].

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: cHTML didn't take off? I think Japan begs to differ, and I think it's an example of how very limited access can still be useful. I believe we're seeing the same adoption finally start to sink in in Europe (with XHTML MP / Basic content). I don't think it's true that the mobile devices that are in most people's hands now can handle anything like full HTML. My relatively not-ancient Motorola V710 sure doesn't. I don't think this distinct "mobile web" will exist indefinitely -- usable full-web devices will become more common -- but it will be here in 5 years. Please push for these full-web portable devices, since it's the long-term future. The short-term future concerns what people have now, and those are little WAP phones. The W3C can and should have a role and voice in this phase of mobile web evolution, even if it's just a phase.

Resolution: Proposed Resolution: We perceive a need for use of Basic today - note that cHTML is an example of successful mobile markup. It's possible that this need will disappear in the future. If it does, then the need for that specification will diminish.

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