- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 09:44:14 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21778 Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> --- Leif, it would be helpful to understand the content of your discussion with the iCab guys - and even more helpful to have their comments on the list directly. Since a blank longdesc is technically a URL, the behaviour you are requesting would be a wilful violation of HTML, something I am reluctant to do without some very clear justification. While in the normal case we can expect a blank link to be an error, it is well known that a lot of longdesc is still done badly. I think we are in an analagous position to alt 15 or so years ago, when it seemed to be used more often for attempted SEO than as a text alternative. A site might actually use server-side magic to provide something useful, as the current set of specifications has allowed for over two decades, although I don't know of any such case and would not be surprised if we didn't find one. My inclination is to wontfix this, but I think we should have further discussion first. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 09:44:15 UTC