- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:58:14 -0500
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Aug 18, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Robert Burns wrote: > > Hi Josh, > > On Aug 18, 2007, at 6:29 AM, Joshue O Connor wrote: > >> >>>> 1) <img> >>>> 2) <img embedrel='missing'> >>>> >>>> the value of embedrel is 'missing'. These all reflect the important >>>> information that the alternate for this content is missing. It >>>> doesn't matter whether an authoring tool couldn't provide the >>>> information (2), or its simply a careless author (1) or not >>>> targeted at all to be accessible (2) in an email application. >> >> </confusion> >> >> <glimmer_of_comprehension> >> >> So I guess this could be a situation where an author of the >> webpage has >> been given unfamiliar (to them) content by someone to mark up. The >> content is not a domain that the developer is familiar with or >> qualified >> to comment on, so he/she states. "Here is an image, there is some >> important information in this image but its missing an alt >> description >> as whoever wrote this piece didn't include it and I as a mere web >> developer am not in a position to comment, and as a result you (as a >> user of AT) may not fully understand what is going on here"? >> >> <hopeful_happy_ending> >> >> Is this correct? >> >>> We've discussed a bit further off-list, and he seemed to share >>> the same >>> goals. >> >> Cool. > > Yes, I think you understood it well (though the suspense was > killing me). :-) > > I'm still getting a better understanding of my proposal as I > discuss it, but this might help. > > The attribute @embedrel either 1) describes the relation of the > embedded content to the surrounding document or document fragment; > OR 2) tells the user where they can find it. In the case of > 'decorative' and 'icon', that is the relation (though with 'icon' > there can be more explanation in the fallback location too). For > 'seecontext' users should read the surrounding context to > understand everything they need to know about the embedded content. > For 'seefallback' users should read the fallback. Finally, (and > perhaps it is a better exposition to end with this one) 'missing' > means the explanation of the relation between the embedded content > and the surrounding document is missing. It has not been provided. > > IS this a document conformance error? I think leaving off @embedrel > completely with no value should definitely be a document error. > Adding it with the value missing is not ideal either, but at least > it lets authors know that there is something missing from their > document: perhaps something that can be made complete later. Every > time the author edits the document, they may see these 'missing' > keywords. > One other thing on this proposal to add a new required embedrel attribute to IMG: <<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0647.html>> In some off-list discussions on the topic , there are other use-cases where 'missing' may be needed. There are batch processors that quickly generate a webpage even from just the contents of a camera's flash memory. Other examples of apps that may need this are conversion applications or an OCR to HTML application that may process in a batch mode. Also , I'd say I'm not totally happy with the NCNames I've come up with for these facilities. They're roughly what I think we ned, but I'd welcome any better names anyone wants to suggest. Take care, Rob
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2007 00:58:28 UTC