This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 6966 - LINK_TARGET_FORMAT-1: javascript URIs should not be reported
Summary: LINK_TARGET_FORMAT-1: javascript URIs should not be reported
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: mobileOK Basic checker
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Java Library (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: fd
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-05-27 11:50 UTC by fd
Modified: 2009-05-29 14:24 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description fd 2009-05-27 11:50:31 UTC
The test should apply to linked resources, defined in the spec as URIs with the scheme http and https:
 http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/#linked_resources

In particular, javascript URIs should not be treated as linked resources, and the warning should not be triggered by such URIs.

See for instance the result of the checker on:
 http://cnn.com

This bug was introduced in the overhauled version. The comment that describes the implementations of the ResourceExtractor interface claims:
[[
 URIs whose scheme is not supported are ignored. As far as mobileOK
 is concerned, this means that URIs must use the scheme HTTP or
 HTTPS, but note the code actually relies on the list of
 ResourceRetriever defined in TesterConfiguration.
]]

The comment is right, but the code actually doesn't check anything, and extracts all kinds of URIs. These URIs then appear in the moki document in the links, images, objects sections. They should not appear there
Comment 1 fd 2009-05-29 14:24:47 UTC
Extractors updated to ignore unknown schemes.

The ResourceExtractorFactory interface had to be completed with a isSchemeSupported method.

Ignoring an unknown scheme is what the mobileOK spec imposes but I still find it a bit strange not to raise at least a warning when e.g. an image whose URI is of an unknown scheme is encountered.

I raised a similar comment a long time ago in:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Jan/0125.html