Thanks, I love the more graphical layout and organization putting critical issues on top.
The checker told me a number of very useful things like my page size is too large, not to use event handlers.... I went and found a wai-aria model that I think will work instead.. I have been moving image sizing to the style sheet and not left inline.. Take care, Nancy Johnson On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Phil Archer <ph...@w3.org> wrote: > > On 12/12/2011 17:28, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: >> >> On 12/12/2011 17:18, Nancy Johnson wrote: >>> >>> I noticed this validator only checks for xhtml 1.1 basic or mp1.2. Is >>> it going to checking again html5? http://validator.w3.org/mobile/ >> >> >> Not to my knowledge, no. You could argue that it's aimed at older >> generations of phones/browsers. > > > We (W3C) have been discussing this issue. The mobile checker is an > implementation of the mobileOK Basic Tests [1] which is the machine testable > subset of the Mobile Web Best Practices [2]. As long as that is true we > have: > > - a checker rooted firmly in a specification - which is a good thing; > - a checker that is growing old and, as is obvious, increasingly out of date > - which is a bad thing. > > If we were to update the checker to, for example, cover HTML5 or any other > technology (CSS3, SVG or whatever) then how would we root that in a spec? It > becomes a dynamic system without a reference point. > > Now - since a lot of work went in to the checker (and the specs behind it) > and it's a potentially useful tool, we don't want to lose it. However, we > would need some sort of community effort to determine what the checker would > check. There's also an issue of cost - maintaining the validation suite > means writing new code. > > For now, I think we can say that the mobileOK checker is a useful guide. A > lot of the best practices are still entirely valid. Taken with the Mobile > Web Applications Best Practices [3] they form good advice to any mobile > developer. However, it does need some interpretation - which is a pity. > > For example, the checker will warn you if you don't use the > application/xhtml+xml MIME type. If you're coding in HTML5 that's simply > wrong and I haven't seen an instance where there's an advantage in using the > XHTML MIME type. > > The checker will scream at you if you don't include cache control or image > dimensions - those are very much right! > > > >> >>> What about media queries... Is the mobile checker suitable for if >>> you are creating one set of htmls code and for mulitple devices? >> >> >> No. > > > I'd say not yet. What we need is the mechanism for how to manage change and > how to effect change in the checker. Keep nagging us - that might help us > get it higher on the agenda. > > HTH > > Phil. > >> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/ > > > -- > > Phil Archer > W3C eGovernment > http://www.w3.org/egov/ > > http://philarcher.org > @philarcher1 > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******************************************************************* > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
