OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cgmo-webcgm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Question about validation


Dave or Stuart or Rob --

These setView001, 002 HTML files incur two warnings, about character encoding not declared.  I propose that this be tolerated for now (or at worst, a "lime" condition.)

They are HTML 4.01 Transitional.  What is the proper way to do the encoding declaration, and make those warnings go away?

Following links from the validation page, I find:
"For HTML or XHTML served as HTML, you should always use the <meta> tag inside <head>. Example:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" >"

Is that the right approach for these files? 

In our case, do we want "charset=utf-8" or "charset=ISO-8859-1"?

Thanks,
-Lofton.

At 05:15 PM 4/20/2009 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
Rob,

Thanks for the feedback.  Sorry that I didn't recall that detail of your earlier message (the CGMs of setView001 and setView002 pass WebCGM 2.0 validation).

I have fixed three HTML 4.01 validation errors in each test and uploaded:
setView001.htm
setView002.htm

Rob, to spread out the review assignments somewhat ... would you mind doing the re-review and telling me if these two tests are okay for TAP status?

Thanks,
-Lofton.


At 03:48 PM 4/20/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
Lofton,
 
I agree with you, I don't think there is anything wrong with the CGMs in the setView001 and setView002 tests. In fact, I've already pointed this out in an earlier message.
 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200903/msg00058.html
 
Regards,
 
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 12:53 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] UL Test Review Results -- for Benoit

Ulrich -- your review indicates that there are CGM errors -- "CGM Syntax Check - Errors Present" -- on these two tests:  setView001, setView002. 

I have just run MetaCheck with WebCGM 2.0 profile checking (-r webcgm20).  No CGM errors, no profile errors reported on either CGM file.  Could you please elaborate? 

(I think the action on these two tests should stay with you for now.)

-Lofton.

[1] ftp://ftp.cgmlarson.com/test-matrix.htm

At 08:44 PM 4/15/2009 +0200, =?us-ascii?Q?Ulrich_Lasche?= wrote:

Hi All,
 
Attached to this mail you will find my complete test review results for the 14 tests that are assigned to me (2 tests are pending).
 
I checked against the categories CGM Syntax Check , HTML Syntax Check , Visual Check and WebCGM Syntax Check .  These categories are explained in detail within the attached text file.
 
Regards
Ulrich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]