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

[Bug 9212] Change the Generator Mechanism for img from Document Level to Element Level

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:31:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Nu0SH-0006QP-4c@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9212


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX




--- Comment #2 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2010-03-23 09:31:20 ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: 

Quite contrary to the assertion above, I think making it possible for
individual images to be tagged as "don't validate me" makes it far easier for
authors to neglect their responsibility than using meta generator. The thing
about meta generator is that authors don't want to claim that they used a tool
if they didn't, as a subconscious matter of pride. However, they have no
problem using an attribute whose purpose they don't really understand but with
which the validator silently stops pointing out their bugs. It's exactly that
kind of cargo-cult authoring that we need to address here.

Consider, for instance, an author who used to use a WYSIWYG tool, and now
copies some stuff from the output of that tool to an HTML page they are
writing. If we used an attribute, they wouldn't get a validator warning.
However, if we trigger this based on meta generator, then they'll copy the
<img> tags over and now they WILL get validator warnings. This therefore leads
to a more accessible Web overall, IMHO.


The "generated example" given above is IMHO one of the worst possible outcomes
we could get. The site shouldn't generate bogus alt texts. Authors won't know
what "generated" means. Validators will fail to point out the problem. It's
basically the worst possible outcome for accessibility.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 09:31:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 March 2010 09:31:24 GMT