- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:06:22 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21501 --- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- The lottery article also has the following to issues, which should be easy checkable for the validator: * [longdesc] points to the image itself (i.e. the same URL as the src attribute) * [longdesc] points to the page you're already on A double question to you, Charles: (1) Are you _JUST_ opposed tohaving the validation advice I propose in the spec, but have nothing against, and would actually prefer that the validator *do* check several of the things I propose? (2) OR are you _BOTH_ opposed to the validation advice _AND_ opposed to any validation of the things I have proposed? (Needless to say, (1) would be easier for me to understand than (2).) THe Lottery article says that in 96% of the cases, the longdesc: 1. is blank 2. is not a valid URL 3. points to the image itself (i.e. the same URL as the src attribute) 4. points to the page you're already on 5. points to the root level of another domain 6. is the same as a parent link's href attribute (i.e. the longdesc is redundant because you could just follow the image link instead) Assuming that the Lottery article lists those things in order of frequency (which seems likely to me), then the longdesc spec, as we know, covers validation of 1st and 2nd issue above. But the 3rd and and 4th issue - I don't see why we would need a Best Practice document before starting to give warnings about those. I agree that with the 5th issue, we are wading into problems that perhaps are harder to define than issue 3 and 4. For the 6th issue, then I don’t know what validator should do, at the moment, and the issue in this case is of another kind than the issues 1 to 5. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 10:06:27 UTC