[Bug 21501] Advice to conformance checkers section

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21501

--- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I thought about this. My thinking was not to do it. What a conformance
> checker needs to know is:
> 
> - there should be zero or one instances of the description;

Hm ... Let me see if I understood that comment correctly:

1) if the description is internal to the page, then the validator can easily
check that it points to a fragment that exists. The validator already performs
that kind of checks for many attributes, such as for @aria-describedby:
http://tinyurl.com/ce3z9t2 That said: Allthough it is already possible, the
validator doesn't currently run such tests for longdesc:
http://tinyurl.com/cwgqltf And it is even an issue that I forgot to mention in
my proposals above. Consider it proposed, now!

2) if the description is a data URI, then the non-empty URL and the 'fragment
that exists' issue is one and the same issue. Of course, this issue is already
solved ... Though, since a valida data URI should/would also contain MIME
informatio, data URIs allows conformance checkers to cry out if the data URI
points to an image (instead of pointing to an accessible description). I forgot
to add this in my proposals above. Consider it proposed, now!

3) if the description is on an external page, then validators are not known to
run checks that check whether linked resource do exist etc. Plus that for
longdesc, we have the extra issue that valid URLs have been misused to present
irrelevant content. That's the issues my proposal above seeks to fix.

> - the content should be one non-empty valid URL;
>
> Which is already in the spec. I think the rest goes into best practices and
> techniques, and I don't think we should fill the normative spec with them.

I disagree that adding advice to conformance checkers would hurt the feet of
best practice and tecniques documents. Also, HTML5 contain advice to
conformance checkers.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 11:51:48 UTC