[Bug 21501] Advice to conformance checkers section

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

--- Comment #5 from Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> ---
I think a lot of what you are describing is best practice (although in some
situations things that aren't best practice might nevertheless be legitimate -
e.g. a short description might be fine in a text/plain data: url, but
describing a complex infographic might well require a table or two of data, and
enough structure to navigate around).

I am against filling the spec with stuff that is purely meant to answer the
longdesc lottery article. For most users, that will be unnecessary extra
content.

Another best practice would be to check that the language of the longdesc
matches the language of the source document. And another would be to check if
it negotiates to match the users preferred language even if the page itself
doesn't (this is one of the cool things you can do with external longdesc
links).

But I am not interested in putting all that into the spec...

I'm coming to the idea that it would be useful to write a specific best
practices document. Note that there are validators that linkcheck - I just
don't know of any free products that do that.

Looking at the list:

We answer 1 and 2 (so did HTML 4)
3, 4 and 5 have legitimate use cases so should only throw warnings anyway.
Describing the kind of warning and the use cases is definitely better in a Best
Practices document IMHO.
6 is a non-problem. There is a clear difference between having a link somewhere
on a page, and having an explicitly associated link, in terms of allowing user
agents (which include things like search engines) to unambiguously associate
the description with the image.

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

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 11:07:11 UTC