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

Re: Support Existing Content

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:48:15 -0700
Message-ID: <17975.53695.477646.993096@retriever.corp.google.com>
To: mjs@apple.com
Cc: raman@google.com, roger@456bereastreet.com, public-html@w3.org


The text you cite for img is the type of thing I'm asking for --
you're correct.

But the size of the document, combined with the fact that it's
not split out might well be the problem 

Maciej Stachowiak writes:
 > 
 > On May 1, 2007, at 2:17 PM, T.V Raman wrote:
 > 
 > >
 > > Despite your assertion that that's what WA1.0 does,
 > > I think the feedback you're receiving loud and clear from everyone  
 > > from outside
 > > the community that wrote that spec  is to the contrary.
 > 
 > I think the people giving such feedback are either uninformed or  
 > misunderstanding the spec. That's why I am trying to clarify what the  
 > spec says. It has separate document and user agent conformance  
 > requirements, where the document requirements are more strict. This  
 > is a fact, regardless of how many people give feedback to the contrary.
 > 
 > > To date, I've seen all of that feedback dismissed rather  
 > > peremptorily  ---
 > > and in some sense, just asserting "that is what we're doing" is
 > > also just as dismissive.
 > 
 > Can you give evidence that the spec does not do this? I can  
 > definitely state based on having read it that the requirements for  
 > content producers define a stricter language than the requirements  
 > for producers. No number of opinions otherwise
 > 
 > > I personally dont concur with that assertion.
 > 
 > Regardless of who concurs or not, it is true. Split conformance  
 > requirements are a matter of fact, not opinion. Here is a specific  
 > example, from the definition of the 'img' element:
 > 
 > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-img>
 > 
 > "The img element represents a piece of text with an alternate  
 > graphical representation. The text is given by the alt attribute,  
 > which must be present, and the URI to the graphical representation of  
 > that text is given in the src attribute, which must also be present.
 > ...
 > If the alt attribute is omitted, user agents must treat the element  
 > as if it had an alt attribute set to the empty string."
 > 
 > Notice that it requires content producers to include an alt attribute  
 > on img, but requires content consumers to handle a missing alt  
 > attribute in a specific way. So this is an example of exactly what  
 > you asked for, a stricter language for produxers than consumers.
 > 
 > Now, it's possible to debate whether the spec goes far enough in  
 > splitting user agent and document requirements. But whether it does  
 > so at all is not debatable.
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Maciej

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman 
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 23:48:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT