This document:Public document·Annotated document·View comments·Search comments·Add a new comment·Send replies to comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group
Other specs in this tool
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-1464
There are 5 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
n the mobileOK 1.0 draft, label  appears to be the source of
authenticity. Have you considered a lightweight text-based logo styled
in CSS? From 1.4.3 Visual Representation :
"Content which bears a mobileOK label may optionally advertise this
by displaying a mobileOK logo (to be produced)..."
The example below condensed is about 200 bytes. A CSS expert can improve
on that no doubt. :-). I don't know if the mobileOK mark is meant to be
a service mark, or a trademark or if the strings would need to be
protected by patent, copyright or trade or service mark registration.
Apologies in advance if I misunderstood, and the spec means that the
logo itself needs to be hard to forge.
padding: 0.05% 0.3%;
font: bold smaller sans-serif;
"If the request response does specify a character encoding but it is not
How about US-ASCII? especially since you can treat US-ASCII
as UTF-8 and preserve the meaning of the bytes.
It's perhaps not worthwhile to complicate things, if very
few documents are labelled US-ASCII.
p.s. I wonder if it's acceptable to limit encodings to UTF-8
and exclude UTF-16; it wasn't when XML was ratified.
But I'll leave it to those who have 1st-hand experience
with the need for UTF-16 to comment on that.
p.p.s. The fragid #id4485785 seems fragile. If you're
going to break it, break it only once, for the next draft.
At that point, change it to something like #char-encoding-support
and keep it that way for future revisions.
Congratulations on your First Public Working Draft  for mobileOK. A
comment for 2.2:
"If the document's MIME type, as specified in the HTTP response
Content-Type header, is not application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml or
application/xhtml+wml , FAIL"
These are called Internet Media Types (rather than MIME I think) and are
not registered. Are you planning to register them?
I am not an expert but am checking to see if mobileOK requires XHTML
Basic and Basic requires application/xhtml+xml.
"If the document's DOCTYPE's PUBLIC identifier is not an XHTML
Basic identifier (at present, "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.1//EN" or
"-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"), FAIL"
In case the references help, the topic came up in March of 2004 on two
different W3C lists [2,3].
Hope this helps,
Add a comment.