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:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers

"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  
draft.

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.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 06:14:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:06 GMT