Re: Letter to the Team Contact - ISSUE-30.

Mike Smith, a clarification for my third point:

Leif Halvard Silli, Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:01:36 +0200:

[ snip ]

>>> 3) Concerns not being duly considered
>>> Example: Longdesc link rot was cited as a problem both in the 

Please read "link rot" as "invalid URLs". obviously does 
not check for link rot in URLs, but it does check that the string of 
e.g. @src and @href are valid URLs. 

>>> objections, in the zero-change proposal _and_ in the decision document. 
>>> In my objection, I pointed out that this - in a way - automatically 
>>> becomes solved as soon as @longdesec is made valid: by making @longdesc 
>>> un-obsolete, HTML5 conformance checkers must - obviously - start to 
>>> conformance check the @longdesc URL. (Explanation: in the HTML4 
>>> validator, no URL validity checking is performed whatsoever, whereas 
>>> does check URLs, as long as the attribute isn't 
>>> obsolete.)  
>>> I filed a bug about this, to make sure that conformance checkers would 
>>> do this, and the link to the bug is in my objection. 
>>> However, not a single time does the decision document that it has 
>>> considered this simple and obvious argument. Instead, the decision 
>>> document states it to be "uncontested" that "more work is needed to 
>>> make longdesc useful". However such a general statement is hardly 
>>> relevant when the required work, at the most basic level, simply 
>>> involves moving @longdesc from the list of obsolete attributes to the 
>>> list of valid attributes.

[ snip ]
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 16:08:07 UTC