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: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:23:54 -0400
Message-ID: <016a01c89bc6$87fc7c00$0901a8c0@HANDS>
To: "Philip TAYLOR" <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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>

sure will look funny as a tooltip.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philip TAYLOR" <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: [html4all] New issue: IMG section of HTML5 draft contradicts 
WCAG 1 & WCAG 2 (draft)





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 ...

** Phil.
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 11:24:34 GMT

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