W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [html4all] New issue: IMG section of HTML5 draft contradicts WCAG 1 & WCAG 2 (draft)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:13:56 +0200
Message-ID: <47FF47F4.1080104@gmx.de>
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
CC: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, wai-xtech@w3.org, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>  >> By "no value at all", do you mean (a) "no ALT attribute"
>  >
>  > Yes.
>  >
>  >> (in which case the answer is that my proposal is
>  >> syntactically valid, assuming a mandate for ALT
>  >
>  > Well, if we insist on requiring the attribute, than not having the
>  > attribute is invalid. Invalid is bad. This is why we are having this
>  > discussion, aren't we?
> 
> Fine, so we agree, do we not ?  My proposal leads
> to valid HTML, and the AT user will learn from the
> ALT text supplied that no more meaningful ALT
> text was available at the time that the page
> was generated.  Not sure where we differ ...

A string saying "there is no alternate text" may be syntactically valid, 
but doesn't help the user at all. It will be displayed/read just like it 
was the alternate text.

In general, requiring values for things that can't always be provided is 
a bad idea. It always leads to authors making up values, which makes the 
  situation *worse* for the people depending on it.

BR, Julian

PS: I do agree though that it's not correct for the HTML WG to simply 
ignore what the other WGs say. But this is a process issue.
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 11:14:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:14 GMT