W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF - Rule Review: HTML page language is valid

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: team-wcag-act-surveys@w3.org,maryjom@us.ibm.com,wilco.fiers@deque.com

This questionnaire was open from 2019-11-19 to 2019-12-05.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Instructions
  2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format
  3. Rule assumptions
  4. Implementation data
  5. Consistent with WCAG
  6. Remaining open issues
  7. Other questions or concerns
  8. Readiness for publishing

1. Instructions

The rule HTML page language is valid and answer the questions in this survey. If there are issues with the rule, you may either open an issue in GitHub or provide details in the entry fields for the applicable question.

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results

Details

Responder Instructions
Detlev Fischer
Wilco Fiers
Charu Pandhi
Romain Deltour
Jonathan Avila
Kathy Eng
Mary Jo Mueller
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð

2. Consistency with ACT Rules Format

Does the rule follow the ACT Rules Format 1.0?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 5
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions are documented below. 2

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Consistency with ACT Rules FormatComments
Detlev Fischer I don't know. My questions are documented below. The applicability section says that "iframe and object elements are not applicable "to then say that a wrong lang attribute ma ystill create problems. Thi smay be slightly confusing. If it can cause probles, why is it not applcable? Because it RARELY causes problems? Because it is difficult to set the correct language on embedded content?
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi I don't know. My questions are documented below. Understand iframe or embedded objects are inapplicable for this rule. The note says an incorrect lang attribute on them could still cause a problem, if so can we clarify why? Will there be another rule to test that? and also maybe add a test case to that extent may help.
Romain Deltour Yes
Jonathan Avila
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes

3. Rule assumptions

Are the assumptions acceptable?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 6
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions are documented below. 1

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Rule assumptionsComments
Detlev Fischer Yes
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Romain Deltour I don't know. My questions are documented below. I don't understand what is meant by: "This rule doesn't test if the attribute is needed to comply to WCAG."
Jonathan Avila
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes

4. Implementation data

Is the implementation data correct?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 3
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. 1
I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. 3

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Implementation dataComments
Detlev Fischer I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below.
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Romain Deltour I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. (I'm not sure what the ACT TF is expected to review here)
Jonathan Avila
Kathy Eng No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below. Failed example 2 (https://act-rules.github.io/rules/bf051a#failed-example-2) should not fail since "This rule checks that the lang attribute of the root element of an HTML page has a valid primary language subtag."

The lang attribute value has a valid primary language subtag, but a syntactically invalid region subtag.
<html lang="en-US-GB"></html>
Mary Jo Mueller I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes

5. Consistent with WCAG

Is the rule consistent with existing WCAG documents?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes 5
No. I have opened an issue in GitHub or have documented my comments below.
I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. 2

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Consistent with WCAGComments
Detlev Fischer I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below.
Wilco Fiers Yes
Charu Pandhi Yes
Romain Deltour I don't know. My questions or comments are documented below. This rule essentially checks that:
- the lang attribute is syntactically correct
- the primary language subtag is well-known

Question 1: Is it assumed or well known that invalid sub tags *after the primary language subtag* are causing accessibility issues ? (e.g. is "en-US-GB" really going to cause accessibility issues?)

Question 2: What about grandfathered tags (e.g. `i-lux`, `i-navajo`)? My understanding is that they're allowed, but maybe this should be made explicit in the "valid language subtag" definition.

Jonathan Avila
Kathy Eng Yes
Mary Jo Mueller Yes
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes

6. Remaining open issues

Are there any remaining open issues for this rule that were opened prior to this review?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. 2
Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published. 1
No, there are no open issues. 3

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Remaining open issuesComments
Detlev Fischer
Wilco Fiers No, there are no open issues.
Charu Pandhi Yes, there are open issues but they don't need to be resolved for the rule to be published.
Romain Deltour Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. Depending if the TF sees my comment above (survey question 5) as real issues.
Jonathan Avila
Kathy Eng No, there are no open issues.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes there are open issues that need to be resolved. I have listed them below. Looks like Trusted Tester has implementation data for this rule submitted in issue 1045.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð No, there are no open issues.

7. Other questions or concerns

Do you have any further questions or concerns about this rule?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. 2
No, I have no further questions or concerns. 5

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Other questions or concernsComments
Detlev Fischer See above
Wilco Fiers No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Charu Pandhi No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Romain Deltour No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Jonathan Avila Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. Not holding up this rule -- but I did log a comment indicating that this rule is very heavy. This test along requires 9k of file size just to test the 9k sub language codes. While this isn't an issue for many checker -- for checkers that are dynamic and run live this can be very heavy.
Kathy Eng No, I have no further questions or concerns.
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, I have questions or concerns, described below. Agree with others' concerns about the sub-language. Since this rule is to check the validity/existence of a primary language tag it shouldn't check for sub-language.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð No, I have no further questions or concerns.

8. Readiness for publishing

Do you think this rule is ready to be published?

Summary

ChoiceAll responders
Results
Yes, it is ready to publish as-is. 1
Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. 5
No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. 1

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details

Responder Readiness for publishingComments
Detlev Fischer Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. Possibly clarify the note to make it explicit that iframe / object lang attr are excluded, and why.
Wilco Fiers Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. I created a PR for this, minor changes, but I think they should happen:
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/1036
Charu Pandhi Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. The reasons listed in #1
Romain Deltour Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. Depending if the TF sees my comment above (survey question 5) as real issues.
Jonathan Avila
Kathy Eng No, it is not ready to publish and the reason is documented below. see response to #4 re: Failed example 2
Mary Jo Mueller Yes, it is ready to publish with the following changes. Address concerns over sub-language. Include Trusted Tester test data.
Kasper Isager Dalsgarð Yes, it is ready to publish as-is.

More details on responses

Non-responders

The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:

  1. Katie Haritos-Shea
  2. David MacDonald
  3. Chris Loiselle
  4. Rachael Bradley Montgomery
  5. Charles Adams
  6. Daniel Montalvo
  7. Todd Libby
  8. Thomas Brunet
  9. Catherine Droege
  10. Suji Sreerama
  11. Shane Dittmar
  12. Nayan Padrai

Send an email to all the non-responders.

Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.