W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2010

Re: CFC re ISSUE-31 Missing Alt

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:05:34 -0500
Message-ID: <l2u1c8dbcaa1004290005na5fac55fq86cd6f9ea0969e8b@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Dave,

> 'a missing tag' is ambiguous (and 'a missing tag must be generated' could be
> seen as a contradiction...)
>
> a tag stating that 'alt' is known to be missing, perhaps?
>
> 'which can then be...' appears to be connected to the authoring tool, rather
> than this new tag
>
> overall:
> if an authoring tool prompts an author for alt text and the author
> explicitly refuses to supply it, then a tag stating that 'alt' is missing
> MUST be auto-generated by the
> authoring tool; the presence of this tag can then be used to trigger a
> retrieval process
> such as that outlined in the emails on RDFPic [1] and the RDF and
> Photos W3C Note [2]

This is an excellent observation, Dave. WAI CG suggested the name
"missing".  But a more accurate name would be "incomplete". I've
changed the name of the attribute to "incomplete" in the document.

> I'm not at all sure I agree with this approach, but we may as well be clear
> about what we are debating!

What is it about this approach that makes you unsure?

Best Regards,
Laura
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 07:06:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:08 GMT