- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:42:32 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21501 Bug ID: 21501 Summary: Advice to conformance checkers section Classification: Unclassified Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-html-longdesc-20130312/#l ongdesc OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML Image Description Extension Assignee: chaals@yandex-team.ru Reporter: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: public-html-admin@w3.org, xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no Suggest adding a section about advice to conformance checkers. JUSTIFICTION: The spec would gain a lot of credibility if it would contain good recommendations to conformance checkes so that as many as possible of the errors created of the past would be catched via conformance checks. Already, the spec allows conformance checkers verifh that the URL is valid and (soon) that it is non-empty - this is an huge improvement. But is it possible to get conformance checkers to do more than that? Of course, as long as the URL is valid and non-empty, one cannot really issue error messages. But it ought to be possible to issue certain warnings. SUGGESTED ADVICE to give in that section: * Recommend to warn if the longdesc URL does not contain a #fragment URI *and* points to a top level site. (Thus, a double criterion for this warning.) Justification: Longdesc URLs that e.g. points to top level domains have been pointed out as an issue. * Recommend to warn if file suffix of the longdesc URI is identical with the file suffix of the @src attribute resoure (Justifiation: This hints that the longdesc URI points to another image rather than to a description.) * Recommend to run link checks - checks for rotten/broken links (404 messages etc) More/Fewer things? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 00:42:33 UTC