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

Re: Help with text alternative bugs related to HTML5 Change Proposal: "Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers"

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:14:17 -0700
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Message-id: <3B01790D-241A-4684-A97F-9F35640B1154@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Hi Laura,

Thanks for filing all these bugs (I saw them pop up in bugzilla) and  
sorry for the late reply. I do have one comment still.

On Mar 1, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:

>>> 8. I've drafted bug to enable automatic validators to  
>>> programmatically
>>> determine the presence or absence of a set of text alternatives as
>>> HTML4 did with alt:
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Bugs/ProgrammaticallyDetermineTextAlternatives
>>> Any suggested text or ideas to improve the bug text?
>>> I don't understand this bug. Are you saying that it's currently  
>>> not possible
>>> for validators to programmatically determine the presence or  
>>> absence of text
>>> alternatives?
> Yes. Is this a wrong interpretation? Will the validator throw an error
> if one of the options in the set is not provided? Can the validator
> determine a missing text alternative in HTML5 as it could for alt in
> HTML4?

As far as I can tell, the text here requires validators to report an  
error if alt is absent and none of the conditions applies:

"A conformance checker must report the lack of an alt attribute as an  
error unless one of the conditions listed below applies:..."

That seems equivalent to me to what is in your Change Proposal. You  
have a slightly different set of conditions, but I do not see how your  
set is more programmatically checkable than the one currently in the  

Therefore, I believe the following bug is based on an incorrect  
assumption: <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9213>

Presumably it will get resolved as WORKSFORME or something, but you  
could close it yourself if you agree with my interpretation above.

Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 06:14:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:09 UTC