- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 09:57:45 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21778 --- Comment #5 from Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> --- (In reply to comment #4) > 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. d'uh. But not a "valid *non*empty* URL". There was a reason for putting that in the spec. > 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. And this spec was written to clarify that it isn't a valid way of providing longdesc. > My inclination is to wontfix this, but I think we should have further > discussion first. I'm still inclined to wontfix this, beyond noting that there is a dependence on the bugs about whether a user agent must present longdesc, or can ignore invalid values, etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 09:57:46 UTC