Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update identify-input-purpose.html #3310

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

@mbgower mbgower commented Jul 28, 2023

Replaced relative link with FQDN link https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#input-purposes since the existing one is triggering nothing when it appears at the top of the Understanding document.


Preview | Diff

Replaced relative link with FQDN link https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#input-purposes
since the existing one is triggering nothing.
@mbgower mbgower requested a review from alastc July 28, 2023 14:17
@scottaohara
Copy link
Member

this is related to the larger issue of the understanding docs losing their link back to the spec - and that all links back to the spec from understanding docs are broken - as this PR further identifies.

fixing these should obviously be done, but is a one off PR the way to go, or is there a way to fix all of these broken links at once?

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Jul 31, 2023

I think this is a separate thing. There is an the include for SCs that is pulled into both the Spec and the understanding docs.

For definitions, the relative link works because they are also in both. However, this is to an appendix, the build-template doesn't account for that.

So I think a hard-coded link is the way to go, but we'll need to do different ones for WCAG 2.1 and 2.2.

@scottaohara
Copy link
Member

i understand your take on this @alastc, i was coming from the mindset that in other specs like HTML AAM a generic URL can be used in the source and through the build process of the spec, the necessary URLs can be populated in. So, if that's not a feature that can be used over here, then yes. agreed. a separate issue than the primary issue that i linked to. But, i did intend to be calling out these broken links, as well, in the original issue i filed,

TLC82

This comment was marked as spam.

@kfranqueiro
Copy link
Contributor

The Eleventy-based build system handles this case correctly for 2.2 now, and will eventually also be used to rebuild 2.1 docs (see #4007). This change should not be necessary (and we should avoid hard-coding links to specific versions of the spec), so I'll close this.

@kfranqueiro kfranqueiro deleted the broken-link-identify-purpose branch October 18, 2024 22:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants