See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 July 2008
<scribe> Scribe: francois
<scribe> ScribeNick: francois
[Introduction of Oscar]
<abel> sorry, this is the agenda -->http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Jul/0005.html
dom: I sent an email on Monday to state that I implemented the new grammar validation algorithm.
Basically that means we only check XHTML Basic 1.0 and 1.1
scribe: and XHTML MP 1.0, 1.1,
and 1.2
... I had to introduce a third state: "not validated"
... I also fixed a bug that made the checker fail on unknown
DTDs.
... Basically, it crashed when it couldn't find the DTD in the
in-JAR catalog.
... I updated the results of the test suites to reflect
this
<dom> Changes in validation algorithm
miguel: the checker crashes now in some cases where it didn't before.
dom: it might be related to a commit Francois did last week, that fixed a Linux bug. Could you check the case more precisely
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Jul/0001.html moki proposal
<abel> actually this is the most recent one--> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Jul/0004.html
miguel: introduced new attributes
to match the new requirements, rendered, tasted
... some objects will be tasted and some will be rendered
... question is about objects without type attribute
abel: if the type of the object is set to an unrecognized mime type, should we download it, ignore it?
dom: if the type attribute is set
to something different from image/gif or image/jpeg, then the
object is not going to be tasted.
... If there is no type attribute, then the object is going to
be tasted.
<dom> on type="foobar" => tasted="false"
<dom> on no type => tasted="true"
[francois notes that this is not what the doc says right now, but that is what it "should" say]
<abel> proposal for the moki related to object processing->http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Jul/0004.html
dom: have you seen the reply I made to your proposal? Main question is about images. Do you plan to add rendered as well to images?
<dom> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Jul/0006.html
dom: "Tasted" a priori doesn't apply to images, but "rendered" does
abel: "isBlank" is for something in the Object Processing rule.
dom: I would prefer a single attribute, as it's easier to parse and read.
<abel> isEmpty is about OBJECTS_SCRIPT-5
<abel> isBlank is about OBJECTS_SCRIPT-6 and so on
<dom> tasted=true + rendered=true , tasted=false + rendered=false, tasted=true + rendered=false
dom: I think we should also do it for rendered and tasted. One attribute to rule them all.
<dom> so we should have only one attribuet like "loadtype" with three values: tasted, rendered, none
miguel: If you think that's easier, I don't see any problem
dom: yes, I think it's easier to parse only one attribute as there are only three possibilities here
miguel: ok, not sure about tasted/rendered as they are not exclusive.
<dom> [so 2 attributes instead of 5]
dom: I don't see how you could have something rendered that is not tasted.
miguel: we could try and check if we run into troubles.
dom: yes. Anyway, it's mostly cosmetic.
miguel: Regarding images, you
asked if images should have the same kind of attributes.
... In the moki, we'll have only images that are going to be
rendered.
... no need to include the images that are only tasted.
dom: I think you're right indeed.
<dom> <object data="image.gif" /> <img src="image.gif" />
dom: you'll be able to make sure that the image will be counted only once in the example I just pasted?
miguel: yes.
... We won't count images that are already encountered as
objects
<abel> <object src"img.gif type="image/gif></object>
abel: this object is an object and has no alternatives. No warning and no failures in the current document.
dom: I think it's the same
problem that we're not checking that images have "alt"
attributes.
... Related to the NON-TEXT_ALTERNATIVES text on real
images.
... Initially, there was the same kind of thing in
OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPT, but we're not testing this anymore.
<dom> abel: but we *are* checking the alt attribute
<dom> dom: oh, right
<dom> ... I guess we lost that when we rewrote the object_or_script test
francois: wouldn't the "warning" on empty element apply here?
abel: no, because it only applies to images that are not "image/jpeg" or "image/gif"
dom: That's correct. At this point, given the difficulty to get this algorithm right, I would suggest we simply ignore this for the time being.
abel: I think a warning would be needed.
dom: I guess we could mention it
to Jo. I don't think it would trigger another Last Call, as
it's just an editorial "mistake".
... If it's too complicated to change the wording, I guess we
should forget about it.
... The cost of doing it may be higher than the benefit it
brings (a warning in this case)
<dom> ACTION: Abel to send a note to Jo about the lack of warning on empty GIF/JPEG objects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/02-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-805 - Send a note to Jo about the lack of warning on empty GIF/JPEG objects [on Abel Rionda - due 2008-07-09].
dom: I think we can leave it for Jo to decide whether it needs to be fixed or not.
abel: ok
miguel: ok
abel: wondering whether all images in an object need to be supported, or if some of them is enough?
dom: All of them need to be
supported in the current algorithm, and that's intended.
... Do you have any estimate when you may have a first version
of the implementation of these changes available?
abel: It should be finished for
the next call. Beginning of next week, actually.
... For Monday, for sure.
dom: I'll personally be on vacation starting tomorrow night, but I guess Francois can review this.
[call adjourned]