Re: fear of "invisible metadata"

I didn't quite mean it like that: what I should have said is that as long as
a page is designed to be semantically correct then minor errors given by a
conformance checker such as missing alt tags can be ignored.

100% validity is usually a good thing but can cause unneeded headaches

On 6/18/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Chris@tuesdaybegins.com
http://www.tuesdaybegins.com