- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:55:25 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12561 --- Comment #32 from brunoais <brunoaiss@gmail.com> 2011-11-21 13:55:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #31) > (In reply to comment #30) > > > 4) An alternative solution has been proposed - that HTML5 validators issue a > > warning for the problematic case of a specified 'base' element and @action="" > > or @action=" ". The solution appears to address the problem that exists for the > > '0.2%' without any of the disadvantages that banning an empty @action attribute > > would cause the '4%'. > > Sorry, I forgot one point that Ian Hixie made in comment #20 - that if you only > issue the warning about @action="" when <base> is present, the author may be > unaware that simply adding a <base> could be problematic. Therefore, perhaps > the validator should issue a warning whenever it finds @action="". This warning > might be nuisance for the many legitimate cases of @action="" with no <base>, > but it is much better than issuing an error IMO. > > Thanks again. Why not specify that the problem is the empty @formaction and not the @formaction? State that if you show an empty @action with an empty @formaction is wrong and you should write something in @formaction. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 13:55:31 UTC