Remove leftover references to Flash techniques #3540
Conversation
A few references to FLASH5 and FLASH7 were missed when w3c#1142 resolved w3c#1140. The leftovers seem to have resulted in broken FLASH# links appearing in some of WCAG 2.1 and 2.2's understanding pages: * Understanding SC 2.4.4: Link Purpose (In Context) (Level A) * WCAG 2.1: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/link-purpose-in-context#sufficient * WCAG 2.2: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/link-purpose-in-context#sufficient * Understanding SC 2.4.9: Link Purpose (Link Only) (Level AAA) * WCAG 2.1: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/link-purpose-link-only.html#sufficient * WCAG 2.2: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/link-purpose-link-only.html#sufficient This should resolve it by removing the leftovers from the HTML and JSON versions of affected understanding pages.
EricDunsworth
force-pushed
the
flash-techniques-leftovers
branch
from
1f4c384 to
a94eac5
Compare
|
@awkawk This might be of interest. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems fine to me, but not sure if we manually edit the .json file or if this just gets automagically generated at build time /cc @iadawn
|
@EricDunsworth are you a member of w3c? If so, please link your account so the ipr check doesn't fail. |
|
@mbgower I'm not currently a member - but have previously sent a couple of PRs to this repo that were ultimately merged (#446 and #851). Would that be a show-stopper given that this isn't a substantive change? Based on the W3C process document's classes of changes section, I believe this PR would constitute an editorial change (falling under one of the first two classes of change). |
|
Seems like the easiest thing to do here would be for a member to re-create this issue so it can be merged in. |
|
patrickhlauke marked as non substantive for IPR from ash-nazg. |
|
Marked it as non-substantive, so all good (for future reference, follow the "details" link on the IPR check, log in with your w3c-associated github account, choose "Mark as non-substantive") |
|
oh cool, I didn't know that was a thing. Thanks :) |
|
@patrickhlauke Thanks :)! I think the only sticking point now is whether the JSON file edit needs to be undone. FWIW based on its file history, it looks you edited it one time in fall 2023 - but it hasn't really been directly edited apart from that. Btw just out of curiosity, if I were to create a W3C account and link it to my GitHub account in order to self-mark any future PRs as non-substantive... would there be any IPR implications or requirement that my employer be a W3C Member organization? Would my W3C account's registration details be publicly-displayed anywhere? |
I don't think so, but I also don't think that just having an account would allow you to mark it as non-substantive either, it needs to be a W3C member(ship) account. |
|
I think the json is created/update automatically, so the change would be over-ridden. |
@alastc In that case, would you prefer that I force-push a revised commit that leaves the JSON file "as-is"? |
|
@alastc I merged this. We can discuss with Ken on our admin call |
|
We briefly discussed this on Friday's backlog call; no worries RE the JSON file, as its generation task hasn't been run in a while, and at some point in the future we plan to look at JSON generation in terms of what formats are currently used by other repos in terms of the ideal format to output. |
A few references to FLASH5 and FLASH7 were missed when #1142 resolved #1140.
The leftovers seem to have resulted in broken FLASH# links appearing in some of WCAG 2.1 and 2.2's understanding pages:
This should resolve it by removing the leftovers from the HTML and JSON versions of affected understanding pages.
Closes #3928