W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: ReSpec: linter

From: <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:21:46 +0100
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, spec-prod@w3.org
Message-ID: <0eb0b720-3049-c70c-3d0a-0dc346bdd70b@w3.org>
On 15/07/2016 07:08, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On July 15, 2016 at 5:05:14 AM, ishida@w3.org (ishida@w3.org) wrote:
>> On 14/07/2016 14:13, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> BTW I have suggested we also add some a11y checking to this. I don't
>>> yet know what that will be. I am asking the APA and ARIA groups for
>>> input on it. But I wonder if there shouldn't also be a check for an
>>> a11y considerations section. I have raised an issue against specberus
>>> to discuss that with the relevant players. [1] Please feel free to
>>> comment here or against that issue.
>> Perhaps we could check for some basic i18n stuff too. For example:
>> - html tag should have lang attribute
> We default this to "en" if missing.

i guess this is ok for most TR stuff, and the validator should now catch 

>> - char encoding must be present and must be utf-8

> Can check with: "document.charset", so doable.
>> - char encoding must be within 1024 bytes of page start
> We got bit by this recently, so we now move the the meta@charset to be
> first child in the head on save... so, at least, generated files won't
> have any issues.

sounds good

>> - meta content-language should not be used
> Yeah, easy one. Have you seen any spec do this?

no i haven't - just precautionary

>> - xml:lang attributes should not appear in the page
> W3C doesn't publish XHTML anymore, so this one probably won't matter.
> Good suggestions. The "document.charset === 'utf-8'" is probably the
> lowest hanging fruit.

yes, and useful since i heard of a WD published quite recently that 
wasn't in utf-8 (!)

thanks Shane and Marcos
Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 06:21:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 15 July 2016 06:21:57 UTC