Edit comment LC-1901 for Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group

Quick access to LC-1854 LC-1855 LC-1856 LC-1857 LC-1858 LC-1859 LC-1896 LC-1897 LC-1898 LC-1899 LC-1900 LC-1901 LC-1902 LC-1903 LC-1904 LC-1905 LC-1906 LC-1907 LC-1908 LC-1909

Comment LC-1901

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>

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 28 September 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 Use of Terms must, should etc. 2.2 Validity of the Tests 2.3 Testing Outcomes 2.4 Conduct of Tests 2.4.1 Order of Tests 2.4.2 HTTP Request 2.4.3 HTTP Response 2.4.4 Meta http-equiv Elements 2.4.5 CSS Style 2.4.6 Included Resources 2.4.7 Linked Resources 2.4.8 Validity 2.4.9 White Space 3 mobileOK Basic Tests 3.1 AUTO_REFRESH 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 3.15 OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT 3.16 PAGE_SIZE_LIMIT 3.17 PAGE_TITLE 3.18 POP_UPS 3.19 PROVIDE_DEFAULTS 3.20 STYLE_SHEETS_SUPPORT 3.21 STYLE_SHEETS_USE 3.22 TABLES_ALTERNATIVES 3.23 TABLES_LAYOUT 3.24 TABLES_NESTED A Acknowledgments (Non-Normative) B References (Non-Normative) BestPractices CSS GIF JPEG POWDER RFC2119 RFC2617 Techniques UTF-8 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:

* " CSS

A resource is considered a valid CSS resource if it conforms to the
grammar defined in [CSS], Appendix B (see note below).

Note:

The presence of at-rules, properties or values or combinations of
properties and values that are not specified in [CSS] does not
constitute a validity failure for CSS. See 3.21 STYLE_SHEETS_USE for
treatment of such values. In addition, the @media at-rule and the
presentation media qualifiers for the @import at-rule are taken into
account when evaluating CSS."

This is a contradiction: The CSS1 grammar does not allow at-rules other
than @import. How about the following wording (if that's what you mean)?

"A resource is considered a valid CSS resource if it conforms to the
grammar defined in [CSS], Appendix B, apart from possible uses of @media
at-rules with optional presentation media qualifiers."

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: Resolve 'yes', I think the original wording still communicates a logical and desired behavior but the clarification here is good I think. My view is that the note makes it clear that non CSS1 properties and @ rules are not failure and that further the special case of @media etc. is actually taken into account when evaluating CSS so I think the proposal actually decreases the value of the explanation [JR] OK I would like to make some small clarification, if not the one he gave.

Resolution: Yes we will make a small clarification here.

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