- From: <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 07:21:46 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, spec-prod@w3.org
On 15/07/2016 07:08, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On July 15, 2016 at 5:05:14 AM, ishida@w3.org (ishida@w3.org) wrote: >> On 14/07/2016 14:13, Shane McCarron wrote: >>> BTW I have suggested we also add some a11y checking to this. I don't >>> yet know what that will be. I am asking the APA and ARIA groups for >>> input on it. But I wonder if there shouldn't also be a check for an >>> a11y considerations section. I have raised an issue against specberus >>> to discuss that with the relevant players. [1] Please feel free to >>> comment here or against that issue. >> >> Perhaps we could check for some basic i18n stuff too. For example: >> - html tag should have lang attribute > > We default this to "en" if missing. i guess this is ok for most TR stuff, and the validator should now catch exceptions. >> - char encoding must be present and must be utf-8 > Can check with: "document.charset", so doable. > >> - char encoding must be within 1024 bytes of page start > > We got bit by this recently, so we now move the the meta@charset to be > first child in the head on save... so, at least, generated files won't > have any issues. sounds good >> - meta content-language should not be used > > Yeah, easy one. Have you seen any spec do this? no i haven't - just precautionary >> - xml:lang attributes should not appear in the page > > W3C doesn't publish XHTML anymore, so this one probably won't matter. > > Good suggestions. The "document.charset === 'utf-8'" is probably the > lowest hanging fruit. yes, and useful since i heard of a WD published quite recently that wasn't in utf-8 (!) thanks Shane and Marcos ri
Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 06:21:57 UTC