W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: [Tidy-dev] Accessibility checking in Tidy

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:34:02 -0500
Message-ID: <031e01c1670a$c2feb1d0$b040968e@wilddog>
To: <html-tidy@w3.org>, "Terry Teague" <terry_teague@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: <tidy-develop@lists.sourceforge.net>, <mikes.lam@utoronto.ca>
We can identify the priority level of the accessibility error in the
warning/error message if that would be helpful.

Our initial thought was that since you specified the error level on the
command line that you didn't need it for each error/warning message.

We're working on some explanation text for each warning/error and expect it
to be done in 2 weeks.

I'm not sure how this would be integrated with the program. Should we have a
"verbose" mode where you get a about a paragraph of explanation for each


----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Teague" <terry_teague@users.sourceforge.net>
To: <html-tidy@w3.org>
Cc: <tidy-develop@lists.sourceforge.net>; <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>;
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Tidy-dev] Accessibility checking in Tidy

> At 10:58 AM -0500 11/5/01, Charles Reitzel wrote:
> >My immediate response:  Great! Let's do it.
> >
> >Nits to pick:
> >
> >1) Should Accessibility warnings be identified as such?  Perhaps even
> >their own "severity level".  E.g. Info, Warning, Access, Error.
> At the moment, the Accessibility warnings are similar to those for the
> of Tidy. There was talk at one time of improving the Tidy error msgs to be
> similar to what you proposed above - I think that will have to wait for a
> future version.
> What I haven't done - in the original code, there was a "-notidy" option
> only do accessibility checking and none of the rest of the Tidy stuff; I
> didn't think this was necessary, so I didn't implement it. But what I
> do is add some kind of divider line between the accessibility error
> and the other errors.
> Waiting on further info from Mike/Chris regards error msgs.
> >2) Accessibility warnings should identify the "level" of compliance (A,
> >AAA)?
> >
> >With these changes, it will be easy for HTML developers to prioritize
> >accessibility efforts.  After all, it will take time to move existing
> >bases over.  Tidy can be used as a diagnostic and management tool.
> I guess if you specify "-access 1" and you get no errrors/warnings, the
> "level" of compliance would be "A"; similarly for "-access 2"/"AA" and
> "-access 3"/"AAA".
> Perhaps this is something that Mike/Chris could be thinking about regards
> any accessibility error summary.
> >Side question: is the "Error: suspicious 'href': has invalid file
> >extension." new?  With server side URL re-writing/mapping, I don't think
> >you can validate URL file extensions at all.
> >>
> >>Accessibility Checks: Version 0.1
> >>line 66 column 51 - Warning: 'href' may reference to sound file.
> >>line 67 column 41 - Error: suspicious 'href': has invalid file
> Perhaps the grammar in the first error could be improved.
> As for the invalid file extension issue, I need to be careful not to have
> platform specific implementation of the checking code - I rewrote the
> original Windows centric code with a more general solution that I haven't
> really checked into since I wrote it.
> Regards, Terry
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 16:34:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:51 UTC