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

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:59:28 -0700
Message-Id: <E10104B4-6B45-4B99-B402-E422F98D56BC@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>


On May 1, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Philip & Le Khanh wrote:

>
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> <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.
>
> A more contorted definition would be hard to conceive.  The graphical
> representation is referred to in the prose as "alternate", yet
> the ALT attribute specifies the text.  If the semantics of IMG
> were really to be as proposed, a more natural representation
> would be :
>
> 	<IMG alt="http://www.whatwg.org/logo.png">
> 		The WHATWG logo
> 	</IMG>

I'm sure your issue will be noted, however, this is completely  
unrelated to the original point, which is that the spec is stricter  
for producers than consumers. My specific example demonstrates one  
instance of that, there are many others. A number of elements have  
specific parsing requirements but are not allowed in conforming  
content at all for instance, which is a stronger way of removing them  
than deprecating.

Will you agree that the spec defines a narrower (and perhaps cleaner)  
language for documents than "everything on the web ever", even if you  
disagree with some of the details of what is allowed?

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 00:59:44 GMT

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