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: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Question about validation


Rob,

I agree.

-Lofton.

p.s.  Did you notice that the Validator also says somewhere on its results page, despite the "Warning" notice, that the file should not be considered valid until the Warning is fixed?  Now, is that a waffle or what!?

At 10:33 AM 4/21/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
Lofton,
 
I think we can treat this as a long-term improvement. I suspect most, if not all browsers, default to ISO-8859-1 if no character encoding is declared in the document. In fact, the W3C validator flags this problem as a warning rather than an error (more serious).
 
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:26 AM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: David Cruikshank
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Question about validation

Thanks for the feedback Rob.

Does it seem agreeable that we treat this as a long-term improvement (sub-lime, i.e., not rising to the level of "lime" in the test-status matrix)?  We have a lot more to do this week. 

Or ... do you consider it to be a more serious flaw in the HTML files?  (Virtually all files that I have tested need a char-encoding declaration.)

-Lofton.

At 09:27 AM 4/21/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
Lofton,
 
The meta tag is the correct way to declare the character encoding in HTML. If we were using XHTML, this could also be done with the XML declaration instead. At this point, I don't think it matters much whether we use UTF-8 or ISO-8859-1 encoding. Every HTML file that I've looked at just uses ASCII characters, so either encoding is valid.
 
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 5:32 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: David Cruikshank
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] 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]