- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:34:46 +0000
- To: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnvU3csNb-h5E_TNSbUOaBK1exP563+b=sS19LvY=6ysw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Chaals, >You mean something like "conformance checkers should check that the URL is a URL"? I'm not convinced that's an important thing to say, because I think it is >obvious. talked with mike smith and he agrees with you. not necessary regards Steve On 16 November 2012 03:25, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 16 November 2012 02:07, Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com> wrote: > >> ** >> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:05:40 +0100, Steve Faulkner < >> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> anoither suggestion: add a 'file a bug' link to the buzilla component for >> the spec >> >> >> Done. >> >> >> On 9 November 2012 10:10, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> an initial comment is that I suggest conformance checker advice around >>> the issue of valid URLs be added. >> >> >> I didn't do this at the moment. >> >> The nu mark validation service does some error checking on href values , >>> I don't see any issue with extending those checks to cover longdesc values >> >> >> You mean something like "conformance checkers should check that the URL >> is a URL"? I'm not convinced that's an important thing to say, because I >> think it is obvious. >> > > To my knowledge the content of the longdesc attribute has not been checked > by the W3C validation tools to date, so it may not be so obvious to > conformance checker implementers, besides having a few words of informative > guidance on the subject cannot hurt. > > >> >> What do folks think? >> >> another suggestion is that a best practices document be developed on the >>> provision of long descriptions be developed that can be referenced from the >>> spec itself and from the conformance checker when an error is triggered due >>> to above (or any other syntax longdesc related errors). >>> >> >> I'd be happy to link if we have such a document. I didn't, because I >> believe there is a lot of guidance available all over the web, and that >> holding up this spec for a document that doesn't exist isn't really >> necessary work. So in the draft I claimed it was out of scope. But I note >> that Leonie also commented that would be a useful thing. >> >> So, what do we want to do about this question? >> > > this is not something that has to be dealt with before FPWD, but I do > think that it should be considered as the spec matures. > > >> >> Thanks for the review. I published an update: >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html >> >> cheers >> >> Chaals >> >> -- >> Chaals - standards declaimer >> > > > > -- > with regards > > Steve Faulkner > Technical Director - TPG > > www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | > www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner > HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - > dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ > Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html > > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 10:35:55 UTC