- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 02:23:54 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21439 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #11 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- (In reply to comment #10) > The may statement in the conformance requirements has been removed. Right. But as is, the descriptions blurs things, I feel. (But feel free to suggest we handle this as a separate bug.) > Since it is true that a common mistake is to include the description > directly in the attribute, the repair example and the informative statement > about it are still there, based on the "heirarchy of needs" principle - it > is more important to help users than authors... Yea. But even if every second longdesc was text, still, as long as @longdesc is supposed to be a URL container, then everyone should be able to expect that, by *default*, user ageents seek to resolve it as a URL [1] before eventually seeking to consume it as text. Agree? (Note: by default.) Note, in that regard, that the URL standard, which HTML 5.1 refers to, considers spaces inside a URL as valid,[3] (see bug 21897). But note as well that what the URL standard says about *failure*, might come us to resuce:[2] ]]Parsing (provided it does not return _failure_) and serializing a URL will turn it into an absolute URL.[[ PROPOSAL: * In the examples and informative statement’s, replace the references to '(in)valid URL' with references to 'failure' to parse URL. * E.g. instead of this: //Tries to repair errors where the longdesc isn't a URI Say this: //Tries to repair where URL parsing of longdesc leads to failure * And e.g. instead of (validURL(i.longdesc)) { //assumes some URL validating function Say this: (failureURL(i.longdesc)) { //some URL parsing failure function JUSTIFICATIONS ETC: * A JavaScript could probably pre-check (without following it) the url for failure, and thus prepare it for repair. * Note that URL standard, for the @href attribute requires the user agent to 'try more', even beyond failure.[4] And thus, thus, compared with @href, the 'read as text' level would be lower. * More aggressive fixing should be left to user’s configuration of preferences etc. Personally, I think that the requiremetn that the URL must failure, is such a high bar that the risk of loosing the URL becomes very low. Probably, so low that much content that is text, would go pass/parse (sic) as URLs. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/infrastructure.html#resolving-urls [2] http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-parsed-url [3] http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-code-points [4] http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-url-href -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 02:23:55 UTC