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". Validator.nu 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 >>> validator.nu 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
