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

Re: incomplete as pre-defined repair value for @alt and @src (was Re: CFC re ISSUE-31 Missing Alt)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:01:12 -0500
Message-ID: <i2v1c8dbcaa1004290701sf735f6b1ke61aa02a76699f8f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Gregory,

> i vastly prefer "incomplete" over "AltNotAsserted" both for brevity's
> sake and because an "incomplete" can be used to signify missing @alt
> as well as missing @src, which is also "incomplete"

It is simpler. I changed it back again...but I could live with
AtNotAsserted too.

> why use a predefined attribute value rather than a dedicated attribute?
>
> 1. it is simpler

Agreed.

> 2. it applies equally to the 2 components of an IMG that make an IMG
> usable: @src and @alt

Agreed.

> 3. it is highly unlikely that the value "incomplete" will be used as
> an @alt text value

Maybe. The WAI CG document [1] said that "It is important that this
marker is not included in the alternative text string itself." Is this
a problem or not? Wouldn't it be similar to Ian's "curly brackets"
proposal?

> this reinforces the equal priority of @alt and @src to conforming
> HTML

Agreed.

Best Regards,
Laura
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 14:01:49 GMT

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