- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 03:16:42 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21566 --- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- (In reply to comment #7) > Thinking about this, I am leaning to making the statement apply to valid > longdescs, and leaving the error case open for now since I don't think we > have enough experience to clearly define a best practice that should be > enforced by conformance requirements. +1 Strongly support. However, I think the conditions for providing access to the longdesc URL should be be more fine grained, like so: * URL should be non-empty * And URL should not cause parsing failure http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-parsed-url Thus, if the value is the empty string, or if the URL is so malformed that it causes parsing failure, then it should be hidden. (In the 11th comment of bug 21439, I wrote about this: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21439#c11 ) What do you think, Charles? Would you lilke to have even stricter condidtions for making the longdesc accessible to the user? One additional reason to go for the variant I propsoe, is that HTML 5.1 and HTML 5.0 have different requirements with regard to what a valid URL is as it seems to me that HTML 5.1/the URL standard (so far) permits spaces inside URLs. At the same time, what browser considers parsable, is probably much less likely to change than what is considered valid. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 03:16:43 UTC