W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: fear of "invisible metadata"

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:22:34 -0700
Message-Id: <8DC7FDF4-A18D-41A7-AF64-DD0C8538A4A9@apple.com>
Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html@w3.org
To: Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>

On Jun 18, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

> This also goes to show that conformance checkers are tools that,  
> while useful, should not be the
> be-all-and-end-all of error checking.
>
> If a page is designed to be semantically valid then a conformance  
> checker is not really needed.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying if you design a  
program to be correct then you don't need testing.

  - Maciej

>
>
> On 6/18/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>
> >
> > Lachlan Hunt wrote, quote:
> >> No, even if the summary attribute were added to HTML5, it
> >> certainly shouldn't be required.
> > unquote
> >
> > why not?  CAPTION is akin to ALT text - it provides a terse
> > description
> > of the object that cannot be visually perceived; the summary  
> attribute
> > itself serves the same purpose as LONGDESC (which provides a  
> detailed
> > description, orientational material, etc.)
>
> ALT should not be required either. It leads to pointless alt="" on
> images that have no reasonable text equivalent, just to satisfy
> conformance checkers. And that is actively harmful, because AT can't
> tell the difference between a semantically null image and a
> semantically meaningful image with no text alternative.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Chris@tuesdaybegins.com
> http://www.tuesdaybegins.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 01:22:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT