task
stringlengths 12
101
| input
stringlengths 5
5.87k
| output
stringlengths 1
5.47k
| options
sequence | pageTitle
stringlengths 0
151
| outputColName
stringlengths 1
142
| url
stringlengths 24
147
| wdcFile
stringlengths 71
75
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] formatting [2] Warnings in the text are supposed to be set in italic face, but instead appear in bold face. Margins of the text are narrower than specified. [3] S or T [1] | The text is formatted incorrectly. | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] inconsistent-entities [2] The name "Thaddeus Cahill" appears in an English source but is rendered as "Tamaš Cahill" in the Czech version. The date "February 9, 2007" appears in the source but the translated text has "2. September 2007". [3] S or T [1] | The source and target text contain different named entities (dates, times, place names, individual names, etc.) | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] numbers [2] A source text states that an object is 120 cm long, but the target text says it is 129 cm. long. [3] S or T [4] Some tools may correct for differences in units of measurement to reduce false positives. [1] | Numbers are inconsistent between source and target. | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] markup [2] The source segment has five markup tags but the target has only two. An opening tag in the text is missing a closing tag. [3] S or T [1] | There is an issue related to markup or a mismatch in markup between source and target. | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] pattern-problem [2] The tool disallows the regular expression pattern ['"”’][\.,] but the translated text contains "A leading “expert”, a political hack, claimed otherwise." [3] S or T [1] | The text fails to match a pattern that defines allowable content (or matches one that defines non-allowable content). | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] whitespace [2] A source segment starts with six space characters but the corresponding target segment has two non-breaking spaces at the start. [3] S or T [1] | There is a mismatch in whitespace between source and target content. | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] internationalization [2] A line of programming code has embedded language-specific strings. A user interface element leaves no room for text expansion. A form allows only for U.S.-style postal addresses and expects five digit U.S. ZIP codes. [3] S or T [4] There are many kinds of internationalization issues. This category is therefore very heterogeneous in what it can refer to. [1] | There is an issue related to the internationalization of content. | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] length [2] The translation of a segment is five times as long as the source. [3] T or S [4] What constitutes a "significant" difference in length is determined by the model referred to in the locQualityIssueProfileRef. [1] | There is a significant difference in source and target length. | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] uncategorized [2] A new version of a tool returns information on an issue that has not been previously checked and that is not yet classified. [3] S or T [4] This category has two uses: A tool can use it to pass through quality data from another tool in cases where the issues from the other tool are not classified (for example, a localization quality assurance tool interfaces with a third-party grammar checker). A tool's issues are not yet assigned to categories, and, until an updated assignment is made, they may be listed asuncategorized. In this case it is recommended that issues be assigned to appropriate categories as soon as possible since uncategorized does not foster interoperability. [1] | The issue has not been categorized. | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
0e79c61d_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__1 | [0] other [3] S or T [4] This category allows for the inclusion of any issues not included in the previously listed values. This value MUST NOT be used for any tool- or model-specific issues that can be mapped to the values listed above. In addition, this value is not synonymous with uncategorized in that uncategorized issues may be assigned to another precise value, while other issues cannot. If a system has an "miscellaneous" or "other" category, itMUST be mapped to this value even if the specific instance of the issue might be mapped to another category. [1] | Any issue that cannot be assigned to any values listed above. | [] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | 1 | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_2.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Translate [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] translate="yes" for elements, and translate="no" for attributes Textual content of element, including content of child elements, but excluding attributes [XML examples] local, global [HTML5 examples] local, global | No | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Localization Note [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None Textual content of element, including content of child elements, but excluding attributes [XML examples] local, global [HTML5 examples] local, global | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Terminology [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] term="no" None [XML examples] local, global [HTML5 examples] local, global | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Directionality [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] dir="ltr" Textual content of element, including attributes and child elements [XML examples] local, global [HTML5 examples] tbd | No | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Ruby [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None None [XML examples] local, global [HTML5 examples] tbd | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Language Information [Local Usage] No [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] No [Default Values] None Textual content of element, including attributes and child elements [XML examples] global [HTML5 examples] global | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Elements Within Text [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] withinText="no" None [XML examples] local, global [HTML5 examples] local, global | No | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Domain [Local Usage] No [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None Textual content of element, including attributes and child elements [XML examples] global [HTML5 examples] global | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Disambiguation [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None None [XML examples] local [HTML5 examples] local, global | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Locale Filter [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] localeFilterList="*" Textual content of element, including attributes and child elements [XML examples] local, global [HTML5 examples] local, global | No | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Translation Agent Provenance [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None Textual content of element, including child elements, but excluding attributes [XML examples] tbd [HTML5 examples] tbd | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] External Resource [Local Usage] No [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] No [Default Values] None None [XML examples] global [HTML5 examples] global | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Target Pointer [Local Usage] No [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] No [Default Values] None None [XML examples] global [HTML5 examples] global | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Id Value [Local Usage] No [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] No [Default Values] None None [XML examples] global [HTML5 examples] global | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Preserve Space [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] default Textual content of element, including attributes and child elements [XML examples] local, global [HTML5 examples] n/a | No | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Localization Quality Issue [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None Textual content of element, including child elements, but excluding attributes [XML examples] tbd [HTML5 examples] tbd | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Localization Quality Précis [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None Textual content of element, including child elements, but excluding attributes [XML examples] tbd [HTML5 examples] tbd | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] MT Confidence [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None Textual content of element, including child elements, but excluding attributes [XML examples] tbd [HTML5 examples] tbd | No | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Allowed Characters [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] None Textual content of element, including child elements, but excluding attributes [XML examples] tbd [HTML5 examples] tbd | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
40ebd3ca_tion_Tag_Set__ITS__Version_2_0__inting_to_existing_information | [Data category] Storage Size [Local Usage] Yes [Global, rule-based selection] Yes [Global adding of information] Yes [Default Values] storageEncoding="UTF-8" None [XML examples] tbd [HTML5 examples] tbd | Yes | [
[
"N",
"o"
],
[
"Y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Internationalization Tag Set (ITS) Version 2.0 | Global pointing to existing information | http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121023/ | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00051-ip-10-236-191-2_826866895_0.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] propID [Key Word] MUST propID uniquely identifies any privacy proposal [Section] | Terminology | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] the HTML LINK tag [Key Word] MUST agents and services must be able to locate a proposal in this location [Section] | Data transport | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] XML parsing [Key Word] MUST proposals and data syntax are readily processed or presented to the user. The RDF data model was used to structure the required grammar/syntax but applications need not support RDF if they do not want to take advantage of the RDF data model. [Section] | XML/RDF encoding | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] Full XML and XML-namespace support [Key Word] MUST implementations must support full XML and namespaces, not just that used here. [Section] | XML/RDF encoding | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] base data reference syntax [Key Word] MUST agents must be able to understand that syntax of solicited information [Section] | Data References | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] harmonized vocabulary [Key Word] MUST see the harmonized vocabulary [HARMV] for requirements; they must be followed otherwise the implementation abuses consensus on adequate levels of privacy disclosure [Section] | Harmonized Vocab | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] (OK, SRY-, ERR-, SRY, ERR) [Key Word] MUST necessary for reaching agreement. [Section] | Reason Codes | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] new schema instantiation [Key Word] MAY schemas other than the base set can be instantiated and supported by the agent. [Section] | Data Definitions | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
cd2085eb__19990826_Syntax_Specification__Section | [Feature/Operation] source attributes "matched-form" and "extension" [Key Word] MAY agents support multiple, extensible mechanisms by which information is solicited. [Section] | Source Attribute | [
[
"T",
"e",
"r",
"m",
"i",
"n",
"o",
"l",
"o",
"g",
"y"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"t",
"r",
"a",
"n",
"s",
"p",
"o",
"r",
"t"
],
[
"X",
"M",
"L",
"/",
"R",
"D",
"F",
" ",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"o",
"d",
"i",
"n",
"g"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"R",
"e",
"f",
"e",
"r",
"e",
"n",
"c",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"H",
"a",
"r",
"m",
"o",
"n",
"i",
"z",
"e",
"d",
" ",
"V",
"o",
"c",
"a",
"b"
],
[
"R",
"e",
"a",
"s",
"o",
"n",
" ",
"C",
"o",
"d",
"e",
"s"
],
[
"D",
"a",
"t",
"a",
" ",
"D",
"e",
"f",
"i",
"n",
"i",
"t",
"i",
"o",
"n",
"s"
],
[
"S",
"o",
"u",
"r",
"c",
"e",
" ",
"A",
"t",
"t",
"r",
"i",
"b",
"u",
"t",
"e"
]
] | WD-P3P-19990826 Syntax Specification | Section | http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-P3P-19990826/syntax | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00248-ip-10-236-191-2_807453024_1.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 200 [Textual Description] Ok OK [Example] | property delivered correctly | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 204 [Textual Description] No Content [Example] | property retrieved without content | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 206 [Textual Description] Partial Content [Example] | only a subset of the available data stored in the result set | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 400 [Textual Description] Bad Request [Example] | syntactical error with respect to the GET method used | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 404 [Textual Description] Not Found [Example] | the queries resource is not found | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 415 [Textual Description] Unsupported Media Type [Example] | get duration call on an image data store | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 462 [Textual Description] Property not defined in Source Format [Example] | location is not defined in MediaRSS | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 500 [Textual Description] Internal Server Error [Example] | internal library (e.g., extractor) crashes | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
962c04a4_API_for_Media_Resource_1_0__Example | [Numerical Code] 501 [Textual Description] Not Implemented [Example] | only a subset of GET methods for properties implemented | [] | API for Media Resource 1.0 | Example | http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20110712/2ndLC-diff | 27/1438042988051.33_20150728002308-00085-ip-10-236-191-2_813461131_7.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-421 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 6 At link Editorial/substantive: S Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 2.2 [link] Comment: We propose to add to this section on \"input\" the requirement to provide an adequate input method for the user. Especially for complex scripts like Chinese or Japanese, this is a crucial requirement. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The Best Practices do not set requirements on user agents, only on content; we already give recommendations on input mode for the content (see AVOID_FREE_TEXT and DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE]. Any further consideration would better fit in the techniques related to these best practices, on which we welcome contributions: link link | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-422 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 7 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec.2.3 [link] Comment: In some character encodings like UTF-8, scripts with a similar number of characters (e.g. latin versus indic scripts) vary in space requirements. To avoid high bandwidth / cost related to scripts, you might propose for such cases the use of the compression scheme for unicode [link] . [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have not found sufficient support for this encoding scheme in mobile devices. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-433 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 18 At link Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 5.4.12 Comment: The section mentions the use of the XML declaration for declaring in-document the encoding of XML documents, but makes no mention of the standard in-document declaration of encoding for HTML documents or XHTML served as text/html, which uses the Content-Type meta element. This seems a strange omission. Please add text describing this. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added a link to the I18N tutorial on specifying the encoding and have added the specific case you mention in the related technique: link (note that the document only focuses on XHTML, not on HTML) | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-436 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 21 At link Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: General Comment: We believe the document should encourage all participants in the mobile value chain to support Unicode. This is extremely helpful in ensuring international use of this technology and ease of localization of content. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | After futher discussion with Richard Ishida, we have added more specific recommendations as to why using Unicode is a smart thing to do: "Encoding of the content to a desired character encoding is dependent on the authoring tools being used, Web server configuration and the server side scripting technology being used (if any). For a discussion of this see [CHARSET1] and [CHARSET2]. Unicode is a good choice for representing content when served in multiple languages. The amount of bandwidth required to transmit content can vary significantly depending on the character encoding used. Text consisting principally of characters from the Latin alphabet will encode more efficiently in UTF-8, whereas text consisting principally of characters from ideographic scripts will encode more efficiently in UTF-16. When choosing a character encoding, consider the efficiency of the available encodings. Since the Default Delivery Context specifies use only of UTF-8, all applications should support UTF-8. " | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-393 on behalf of Nokia [Comment] 5.4.15 Cache Headers Proposal for adding a statement [CACHE_CLOCK_SKEW]. Ensure the site will function acceptably without cache, but explicitly set cache headers with long expiration times to allow for clock or time zone inaccuracy in the client. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Timezone inaccuracies in the client don't normally affect caching since it relies on GMT time. Clock skews aren't specific to mobile devices and should be handled as a case of deficiency in the implementation when specific to a given mobile device. As such, we haven't modified the document, but would welcome a technique on this specific item: link | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-366 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] We believe that Web site access through mobile devices would benefit from the provision of some minimum-level requirements on terminal capabilities and browser features. If this cannot be achieved, other work should be referenced. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The Default Delivery Context (section 1.4 in the Last Call Working Draft) provides the assumed minimum-level requirements alluded to. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-367 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Accessibility should be addressed more specifically, as the mobile Web (and its specific issues) does not seem to be in the scope of the WAI/WCAG guidelines 2.0, currently under updating. The provided cross-referencing is beneficial but it does not provide enough substance. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The group took inspiration from WCAG 1.0 (and links back to it), but the accessibility experts are in the WAI groups. As such, we think further work on accessibility in the mobile context is out of our scope. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-368 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Access to the mobile Web through a speech user interface is not covered by the present draft version. We believe it should be addressed (also as there is excellent work in W3C to cross-reference), as it is an important accessibility enabler to young and older users and users with temporary or permanent functional abilities. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | This is out of scope of the current phase of work of the Best Practices, as stated in our scope document: """ As the Mobile Web Initiative is primarily concerned with accessing content that would currently be rendered in a desktop or laptop browser, the BPWG's focus is currently on best practices that are most pertinent to "traditional" browsing. However, in future phases, the group may broaden the scope of its work in order to take into account other content presentation options that may be available on mobile devices - e.g., using the emerging multimodal technologies.""" link | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-370 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Setup and configuration is currently considered by consumers as a major difficulty, when trying to access mobile services and applications. As this document does not address setup and configuration-specific issues and it does not provide such guidelines, it should reference available recommendations and best practices developed in other standard bodies and fora, in order to improve the user experience. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Setup and configuration is out of scope for the Mobile Web Best Practices which only focus on the delivery of content to Mobile Web devices. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-385 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 5.2.2.2, How to do it: Provide advice on how to implement device-based wrapping. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The group thinks this topic would be a better fit as part of the techniques, on which we welcome contributions: link | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-388 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 5.4.13, Error messages: The purpose of error messages should be dual: 1. To provide information to the user; and 2. To provide information to the service provider. The recommendation should cover both aspects. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Telling providers to check their error logs is out of scope for this document. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-358 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] 3. Security In order to build commercial services on the web, secure connections are necessary. In addition, these are widely implemented already. Is there no requirement to support https connections in the mobile space as a best practice? [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We don't have any best practice regarding security, and deploying a secure service on the Web and on mobile devices require much more guidance than simple best practices. As a consequence, the group doesn't feel the document should talk about HTTPS. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-394 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] BP Not covered: 1. Don\'t format text as justified. Text aligned to be justified on both sides is often problematic on the web in general - on mobile devices with a relatively small range of fonts and display options, it seriously reduces legibility of content, often at a cost of some extra processing. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have added a new best practice on text effects: "[FONTS] Do not rely on support of font related styling." but we think the particular aspect of justification would be better handled by a technique that was started at: link | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-395 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] BP Not covered: 2. Identify word breaks. (This is related to the previous point) Long words which can be broken should include useful information about appropriate points to do so by including a or similar. display options, it seriously reduces legibility of content, often at a cost of some extra processing. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We think this would be a better fit for a technique rather than a specific best practice. A technique has been started in: link | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-267 Ian Jacobs [Comment] "From the perspective of this document this means that services should be available as some variant of HTML over HTTP." Why is the previous statement here? It sounds like it is an assumption about delivery and belongs in the next section. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | Yes and no: yes, HTTP has been added in the default delivery context -- but no, it also belongs here -- as a clarification of what "One Web" means in the context of this document. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-285 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * The word "exploit" seems like it is being used in the French sense of "make use of". I find that in (American) English it carries a negative connotation, as when one "exploits" a security hole. * This statement is so broad that it should be dropped as a best practice note. Instead, I recommend that you create a section a the top of the document that explains what the best practices notes strive to allow people to do. For example: By following the guidance of this document, designers can: * Learn to optimize their designs for delivery to a mobile device by taking full advantage of device capabilities. * .... In short, this best practice note doesn't actually teach me anything useful. Instead, I would like to learn from the document how to do the thing you are talking about. I realize that there is an "abstract" layer and a "techniques" layer and that the abstract point is to take advantage of device capabilities, but I do not believe you have captured the right level in the above note. Instead, if you are thinking of one or two slightly more specific points, I recommend stating those instead of this very general point. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | * "exploit is the word used in the Device Independence authoring techniques, so we prefer being consistent with them * we think it is important to inform the reader that a good user experience on a mobile devices needs most of the time to be adapated to the device * the techniques document is the place where the reader can learn more on actual ways to learn about device capabilitiles * we have also clarified that we mean more client capabilities than just the ones required to implement the other best practices. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-287 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please delete "reasonable" (if you keep this one). [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We think that reasonable is an appropriate word to use. We expect you to try, but don't expect you to break your back. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-288 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * This can be a dangerous point if not worded carefully. See the relatedprinciple in Webarch: " Agents that recover from error by making a choice without the user's consent are not acting on the user's behalf." I realize that in this context one may not always be interacting directly with the user. But "silently recovering from error" is one of the things that I believe the TAG feels strongly is a bad thing. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The "silently recovering from error" point is relevant to user agent requirements which is out of scope. We believe the text already addresses the issues you've raised. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-290 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Below you say something more interesting, which I paraphrase as "It's ok to not follow some of the other best practices in this document when you need to work around errors." That's a big gate and you should strive to narrow it. Furthermore, you seem to define conformance below "then content providers must comply..." Does that statement belong in 5.1.3.1 or is it a general statement that belongs in a conformance section? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We decided to keep the best practice as is, but we have added text to the default delivery context to mention that no get-out clauses apply in the default delivery context. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-291 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * In my opinion, unless you adopt something more along the lines of what is stated below (a kind of "exception" provision for error conditions) then I think you should delete this one, which, as stated, seems to me to amount to "Do useful things." Again, the note has a very different impact if you are talking about when it's ok to not follow _other_ good practices. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We are writing for Web people who may not have realised that there is even more variation in browsers on mobile than there is on the desktop. We do indeed talk about when it is ok not to follow other good practices. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-293 Ian Jacobs [Comment] I realize that you have chosen to write the good practice notes in the imperative voice. I also realize that more information is provided below. However, I think the reader might take away a lot more if the points included more rationale. Any many people (including myself initially) may simply look at the checklist and not take time to read the entire document. For instance: "Short URIs require less effort to type, are less prone to errors when typing them, and are easier to remember." In light of my previous comment about short labels for the statements, you might end up with: [Short URIs Are Friendly] Short URIs require less effort to type, are less prone to errors when typing them, and are easier to remember. This is not much longer than what you have and I think the rationale provided (likely imperfect as proposed) makes the statements much more meaningful. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | Generally speaking, we think the imperative voice better convey our message across. For the specific best practice on short URIs, we have added a explanatory words and examples, but have kept the best practice mostly as is. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-302 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Access key support on traditional desktop devices is problematic at best. I do not know about the current state of support from the WCAG WG for access keys (looking in the WCAG 2.0 techniques, I find only a placeholder). Is access key support on mobile devices expected to be more interoperable? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | Yes, access key support on mobile devices is interoperable among mobile devices and with some desktop implementations. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-304 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * I am not sure what you mean by this checkpoint. Through Internet protocols I believe two parties can agree on whether a client supports a particular format available on the server. So do you mean that after such a negotiation, in (adapted) content you serve, you don't have to provide information about the format? I don't think you mean that, in particular because I think that would imply lots of communication about all the links in a document to determine the format of identified resources. * Other than through Internet protocols dynamically, I don't know how you can "know the device supports" a given format unless you are designing in a very closed environment, and I thought that the purpose of these guidelines was to explain how to design effectively in anopenenvironment. * Perhaps you can shorten this, therefore, to something like "To help users reduce the cost of unnecessary downloads, for pieces of content in formats that are not part of the default delivery context, identify the format in links." [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | Most content adaptation systems rely on a database of known devices, with information on which format the device support. If you use such a system, you can annotated only the links you know may not be supported; if you don't, you fallback on the default delivery context, which tells you that only XHTML, JPG and GIF are supported formats (we have amended the text to clarify this). | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-305 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * I have a similar concern as above about "unless you know." I think that some of these checkpoints make more sense at certain points in a pipeline than at others. For instance, I as a human author probably don't know whether a particular user agent supports this or that. On the other hand, a piece of software that is actively involved in some protocol negotiation and that is doing content adaptation may very well have that information available. But the points are written for multiple audiences and therefore may be confusing. * What is "an available geometric shape"? I think you mean that the format supports the shape. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The document is about delivered content. The inference for a content author is that if they specify an image map, then under certain circumstances this will not work so they should in addition consider an alternative linear arrangement of links. We have shortened the best practice to: "Do not use image maps unless you know the target client supports them effectively." and explained "effectively" in the text with the remainder of the BP as it is now put. We have also included a note to the effect that Image Maps on the Mobile Web are a bad idea. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-307 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * In developing UAAG 1.0, which addresses these topics, we distinguished two concerns (1) the (visual or other sensory) disorientation caused by suddenly opening windows and (2) the change in focus. * I urge you to recast these in terms of thecheckpoints of Guideline 5of the UAAG 1.0 Recommendation. I am happy to discuss them further with you to help answer any questions. * In particular, an important point is that it's ok to do these things when the user says it's ok. * For the point about "unless you have informed the user", that may be locking up the barn after the horse has been stolen. I think it's more important to provide an alternative. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We don't mean to be prescriptive about providing a means of helping the user choose, we do mean that there must be a way of telling the user that the page will refresh and of stopping refresh once it has started. Any other consideration is more to do with User Agents, which is out of scope for this document. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-308 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please delete this point. I believe the purpose of this entire document is to explain to the reader what it means for content to be suitable for use in a mobile context. Do you mean "suitable" in the sense of "not offensive"? [I don't think you do; just checking.] [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | As explained in the text, we simply mean that you're rarely interested in very detailed and long texts when using the web on a mobile devices, but that you would be generally speaking looking for specific information: "Users in a mobile context are often looking for specific pieces of information, rather than browsing. Content providers should consider the likely context of use of information and, while providing the option to access all information, should offer appropriate information first." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-309 Ian Jacobs [Comment] I believe that the above checkpoint no longer exists in WCAG 2.0. I have not followed that debate recently, but I believe that it is so contentious as written (and not verifiable in any obvious way in that formulation) that you will regret having included it. I recommend talking to the WCAG WG about the evolution of their thinking in this area. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The point is less to be measurable and more to provide best practice guidance. We are saying in the explanation below that a discursive style is usually less appropriate in the mobile context. It's an important point and we have kept it. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-311 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * How are you defining "what the user has requested?" Does that mean "Implement HTTP GET"? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | No, as we explain in the text below. The idea is to be mindful of the users' costs etc and not send them advertising and so on that is not relevant to their needs and at their expense. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-313 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * I think the point of this document is to define what "usable" means. Therefore, I don't think you should have a checkpoint that says divide pages into usable pieces. Tell us instead what makes a piece usable. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We believe the explanation under the best practice makes it clear what we mean by usable size. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-319 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * The first sentence of the second point here can be generalized to be "don't do things that the device can't handle." Because I don't think that is known in all cases, I suggest you delete the first sentence. Perhaps rephrase the point in terms of the default delivery context: "Very large or high-resolution graphics are unlikely to achieve their desired goal when rendered on devices with small screens. Avoid them unless there is no other way to provide the information in question." * In some cases, people may wish to download images for viewing on another device (e.g., I store something on my phone then view it on my desktop computer). You may wish to remind the author of that scenario. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We keep this best practice as it is a classical problem in mobile web design and want to insist on this type of practical issue. On the 2nd point, we've included discussion on downloading items (under link_target_format). | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-322 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please stick very close to WCAG 2.0 on this one as well (I think it is 1.4.3). [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We stick close the WCAG 1.0 - the current W3C Recommendation. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-330 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please delete "unless the device is known not to support them" in favor of a general section on handling this sort of thing (as described above). [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | Given that style sheets are part of the default delivery context, this get out clause is needed when a site adapts its content for a device that doesn't support style sheets. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-331 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * This also comes from WCAG, but I no longer see it in WCAG 2.0. Have you asked them why it was deleted? (I don't see it in the23 Nov 2005 draft) [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | It may have been a WCAG point but the mobile interpretation is that some devices don't do style sheets. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-333 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Delete this point and add to the list of things to "keep short": markup. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We think these are separate concern that deserve separate contexts. While we may have chosen to organize the best practices in the way you suggest, we haven't found enough benefits behind your proposed re-organization to work on a major re-organization as you suggest. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-335 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please delete "Where possible" * I suggest merging these two into a single point about following standard protocols for content type negotiation. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The point is that: * simple standard content negotiation works poorly in the mobile space. * It may not be possible to do it if you're not using content adaptation. * Respect the markup format the client is asking for. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-336 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * "to a minimum" is not well-defined. * Add this to the list of things to keep short. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We prefer to have well-focused practical best practices rather than generic lists of items that fit under a same principle. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-340 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Delete "appropriately" (twice) * By "explicitly" do you mean "through markup language features" (such as the "for" attribute in HTML)? * Please be more explicit about what appropriate positioning is rather than make this general statements. Is "before" better than "after" in reading order? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have removed the duplication of "appropriately". We have split the best practices in two to separate the concerns of labeling and positioning, but the proper positioning of labels with forms controls depends too heavily on the context to be specified more precisely. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-346 Ville Karinen [Comment] Hello all, i remember there was some discussion whether MWBP promotes One Web or not, but in any case, i guess one goal of the *document* is to explain different kind of approaches or strategies how Web can be served for/accessed via mobile device. "The primary goal is to improve the user experience of the Web when accessed from such devices." However, it seems that the document is concentrating mainly on authoring process. As we can change the existing Web very slowly, it would be informative for non-mobile Web experts to illustrate already existing Web to Mobile adaptation processes, which are based on proxy based conversion. These conversion proxies provide the most widest Web to Mobile resource today. Here are some examples which kind of proxies i mean: WEB TO MOBILE Google's quite new HTML -> XHTML MP converter: MWBP document (WAI) conversion as an example. This converter can handle even forms. (Opera Software MIDP browser based on proxy adaptation. This combination enhances site and browser usability) HTML-> WML conversion (handles forms also) Maybe it should explained more clearly, why WAI guidelines - for example - do not cater mobile devices enough. In my opinion, different kind of Web to Mobile proxies should be studied in the future working groups - especially with content conforming relevant (and existing) WAI guidelines. It is said, that the mobile handset can be the only Web device for many users in the third world. That is why it is important to note, that conversion proxies might be someties the only way to get information from the Web. Kind Regards, Mr. Ville Karinen Student (Agr. & For.) [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | As stated in the "Classes of products" section [2], we're only dealing with "content as it gets delivered to a Web user agent". The way it is authored, adapted or proxied along the delivery chain is thus out of scope for our document, although we briefly explain where content adaptation fits in there [3]. Furthermore, a W3C Technical Report would not be the right place to present vendor-specific solutions for content adaptation. Nevertheless, the Techniques the Working Group has started to work on will present a set of technical advices regarding how to put the best practices in application; as these techniques will be open for contributions, maybe could you then suggest something along the lines of your email message? In the meantime, is there a way to rephrase your comment in a way that would fit in the scope of our best practices? Thank you very much for the time you took to review and comment on the document. Dom 1. link 2. link 3. link | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-352 Werner Egipsy Souza (Jataayu Software) on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] _5.3.1 URLs of Site Entry Points_ Here, if URLs for a menu system running into more than 5 pages can follow a URL syntax containing page numbers such as: link then it becomes easy for the user to navigate between pages, just by changing the page number on the URL, through the bookmark. Of course, if the browsing application itself could provide a page browser using this syntax, the user\'s task of navigating through pages would be much easier [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The Best Practice is about site entry points, to which this technique doesn't really apply. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-353 Werner Egipsy Souza (Jataayu Software) on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] _5.3 Navigation and Links _All the URLs for each page, must be listed in the options(or right click) menu, so that if a user he/she wants to go to a URL on the page, he/she just has to scroll through the options(or right click) menu to reach the required URL. then it becomes easy for the user to navigate between pages, just by changing the page number on the URL, through the bookmark. Of course, if the browsing application itself could provide a page browser using this syntax, the user\'s task of navigating through pages would be much easier [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | This is a user agent issue and so out of scope. We do recommend use of access keys which can achieve the same goal of easing navigation. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-351 Werner Egipsy Souza (Jataayu Software) on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] _5.3.7 Link Target Identification _The cost of following a link,as in the case of articles, should be identified in the number of pages which are required by the article, as is done by the BBC Wap page. Hence we get a link at the bottom of the first page of the article, which says \"_Continued Page 2/4_\". The user is then able to choose whether he/she wants to read a 4 page article, or whether he/she should look for another article. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We think this suggestion would be a good fit for a technique related to this best practice; we welcome techniques contributions in our wiki at: link | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-398 Zev Blut [Comment] 1.4 Default Delivery Context There is an entry for screen width, but not height. I think that there should be some value for a default screen height. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We decided not to include the screen height because: * research showed that even being able to view only a few lines (4) was sufficient for a reasonable user experience * we didn't want to fix the aspect ratio | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-399 Zev Blut [Comment] 2.2 Input Discusses the potential lack of back button support, but in section 1.4 the default device supports XHTML- Basic. Is it not reasonable that if the default is assuming XHTML-Basic then the target default handsets have back buttons? [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The "back button" is not mandated by any of the specifications that defines the default delivery context, and in particular, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that any device supporting XHTML-basic would feature a back button. As such, we have kept our text regarding the back button as is. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-401 Zev Blut [Comment] What does the group consider a proper range for short URLs? [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | No specific values have been defined for lengths of URLs because it was felt that specifying precise value might in practice prove too restrictive This BP should be interpreted as meaning if you have the choice between link http://example.com as the access point for your site you should choose the shorter one, which we have tried to clarify through additional examples. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-403 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.3.4 Navigation Bars etc. This is a good idea, but it makes me wonder how possible the one web vision becomes. If one wants to create a page that can provide an optimal display, the developer would need to do quite some work or use a powerful platform. I fear that some developers may give up trying to get the mobileOK mark if it becomes too difficult. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | This is a WCAG checkpoint and a fairly common usablity rule. Put the important stuff first. Note that the Best Practices and the mobileOK trustmark, while related, are different and it is not defined yet which best practice will be included in the definition of the trustmark. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-405 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.4.6 Image Size [IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE] Are there actual examples where not setting the width and height of an image actually hurts the display of the image by the browser? I am not so sure how necessary this is, especially when considering that providing this information increases the size of the page. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have clarified that specifying the intrinsic dimensions of an image allows that the browser doesn't have to re-flow the page in the course of displaying it (re-flowing creates usability problems due to changes of focus, and also may have a bad CPU/battery impact). | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-406 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.4.13 Error Messages This is also a great idea, but some handsets ignore the developer’s custom HTTP 5xx response and shows a built in error message to the user. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Good point but clearly the content author can't do anything about this User Agent deficiency | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-416 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Please say about the participants in the mobile value chain s.t. like "these participants are working with multiple languages ...". [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have removed the section on participants in the mobile value chain altogether since it was not necessary to the comprehension of the document. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-417 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 2 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 1.3 [link] Comment: On scope of MWBP 1.0: Please give internationalization as another example of general good practice which have a specific mobile interpretation. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Our position on this is that if we reference other work we do so because of a specific mobile interpretation. As far as we are aware we do not make reference to any internationalisation as we feel that internationalization recommendations "are general to all forms of Web access". Please come back to us if we are mistaken. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-418 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 3 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 1.3.2 [link] Comment: On aspects of usability: Please mention that proper localization is part of localizability, e.g. in the case of site usability, device usability or browser usability. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We do not think that this has a specific mobile interpretation; the section on usability has been removed in any case. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-423 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 8 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 2.4 [link] Comment: Travel related information might not be useful in a mobile context, since there might be no resource for translating. Please mention the need to make it explicit in the content that such resources are missing. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Non availability of resources in the language of your choice is not a mobile specific issue. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-425 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 10 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 2.7 [link] Comment: Your mention the importance of mobile devices for developing countries. Esp. for these countries, internationalization and localization issues are crucial (e.g. support of a font for the script). such requirements should be made explicit in this document. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We don't think this has a specific mobile interpetation. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.