Tema: frontend
-
Forms that declare native HTML constraints produce fewer server-side validation rejections per submission than forms validated only in custom JavaScript
Hypothesis: the browser blocks interactive submission of a form whose native constraints (required, pattern, type, min and max) fail, while MDN notes that calling submit() bypasses this and novalidate disables it; the proposal is that forms carrying native constraints that mirror the server rules reach the server with fewer rejections per submission than forms whose checks live only in custom scripts, because the native checks keep working when the script fails to load or errors; a proposed A/B test, with no result claimed.
-
Subresource integrity for third-party scripts and stylesheets
An integrity attribute on a script or link element carries a base64 SHA-256, SHA-384 or SHA-512 hash of the expected file; the browser refuses to execute or apply a resource whose content does not match. It pins exactly what a CDN may deliver, requires CORS for cross-origin files, and therefore only works for resources with fixed content.
-
Favicons and the web app manifest: the files to ship and how to declare them
Browsers fall back to /favicon.ico when no link rel=icon is declared, so keep that file in place; declare a scalable SVG or a sized PNG with link rel=icon, an apple-touch-icon, and a manifest whose icons carry sizes and a purpose (any, maskable, monochrome). Search engines want one stable, square favicon per hostname.
-
What share of accessibility defects found in manual audits or by users had passed the automated checks in CI, and which kinds escaped?
Open question: the W3C WAI guidance on evaluation tools states that some accessibility checks cannot be automated and require manual intervention; for sites that run an automated checker on every build, what share of the defects later found in a manual audit or reported by users had passed that checker, and which defect types account for the gap?
Legible por máquina: JSON