|

»

w3.org - public-bpwg

Content Transformation Guidelines 1v

View: New views

3 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	Content Transformation Guidelines 1v by Jo Rabin-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message In what can only be described as a shining example of the Entente Cordiale in action, I am delighted to announce that Anglo French collaboration has resulted in a new version of the CT Guidelines [1], closely linked to its accompanying ICS [2]. Jo [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090924 [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090923
	RE: Content Transformation Guidelines 1v by Sean Patterson-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some comments on 1v: --In 4.1.5.4, in the first paragraph it is stated that "proxies should make the request for such resources with the same User-Agent header field...". Other altered header fields should be included as well (e.g., Accept). --In the second note in 4.1.5.5, the first sentence says "this is a already existing convention...". The word "a" should be "an". --I think the first sentence in 4.2.2 would be clearer if it read as follows: "Proxies must provide a means for users to express preferences for inhibiting content transformation even when content transformation has been chosen by the user as the default behavior." (The word "this" was replaced.) I had to read this a couple of times to figure out the meaning. --In 4.2.9.1, item 2, we are saying that "altered content should validate according to an appropriate published formal grammar". However, much of the unaltered content on the web doesn't validate. I don't think we can expect CT proxies to fix all of that content. (For example, the W3C HTML validation site finds 44 errors with the Google home page.) --In 4.2.9.2, the first sentence in the note ("In this document two URIs have the Same-Origin...") has two periods at the end. --In section I, the first sentence has the clause "but because the client software communicates with using proprietary protocols and techniques". The word "with" can be omitted. Sean -----Original Message----- From: public-bpwg-request@... [mailto:public-bpwg-request@...] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:04 AM To: Public BPWG Subject: Content Transformation Guidelines 1v In what can only be described as a shining example of the Entente Cordiale in action, I am delighted to announce that Anglo French collaboration has resulted in a new version of the CT Guidelines [1], closely linked to its accompanying ICS [2]. Jo [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guide lines/090924 [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guide lines/ics-090923
	Re: Content Transformation Guidelines 1v by Luca Passani :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Sean Patterson wrote: > --In 4.2.9.1, item 2, we are saying that "altered content should > validate according to an appropriate published formal grammar". > However, much of the unaltered content on the web doesn't validate. I > don't think we can expect CT proxies to fix all of that content. (For > example, the W3C HTML validation site finds 44 errors with the Google > home page.) Sean, didn't you once say that novarra is more likely to produce MobileOK content than mobile developers with hand-coded XHTML? is your comment the result of careful observation of the reality of mobile browsers today? or, more likely, does this have more to do with the fact that Novarra relies on tag-soup HTML also for mobile? (see an excerpt of www.w3.org as seen through NovarraVision 8.0 installed at Yahoo, but pretty much any other site will be rendered with similarly messy markup) <html><head> <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"/><title>World Wide Web Consortium - Web Standards</title><style charset="utf-8" type="text/css">/</head><body style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><form action="genformsub/123655480/0/2" method="post" id="NovMainForm" style="margin: 0px;"> <input type="hidden" value="123655480" name="novWml20EvtJS"/> <input type="hidden" value="6946" name="novWml20EvtTopNode"/> <div style="border: medium none ; margin: 0px; padding: 3px; background-color: rgb(201, 222, 245); color: rgb(25, 25, 25); font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,Tahoma; font-size: small;"><input type="submit" value="<" name="PNovmore6930-1;" style="border: 1px solid rgb(134, 177, 224); background-color: rgb(183, 212, 244); height: 19px; font-size: small;"/> 2/3 <input type="submit" value=">" name="PNovmore6963-3;" style="border: 1px solid rgb(134, 177, 224); background-color: rgb(183, 212, 244); height: 19px; font-size: small;"/> </div><div style="font-size: 9.63px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a name="nweb_main"> </a> <div style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-color: rgb(0, 90, 156); font-size: 11.38px; font-weight: bold;"><b><a name="news"> </a><span style="font-size: 11.38px; font-weight: bold;"><b>News</b></span></b></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 9.63px;" id="item165"><div style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-size: 11.38px;"><b>Developer Gathering during W3C Technical Plenary Week</b></div><p> : </body></html> Anyway, just an extra example of how Novarra doesn't give a damn about standards. All they care about is the W3C stamp. Shame on W3C for letting Novarra get away with this in the face of its own MobileOK work (and in the face of what scores of mobile developers have been arguing about transcoding). Luca