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: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:24:12 +0000 (UTC)
To: Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>
Cc: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>, 'HTML4All' <list@html4all.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804112019350.7575@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Matt Morgan-May wrote:
> 
> However, for those who do validate, requiring alt is the only way to get 
> the author to signal his or her intent. To remove that barrier forces us 
> to assume that _all_ instances of <img> without alt present on the web 
> simply couldn't be expressed throws out the bathwater, the baby, the 
> tub, the pipes, and a chunk of the sewer line.

I think validators should still warn about missing alt="" -- after all, 
the case for which omitting alt is allowed is still quite rare.

It's like, to use a recent example, double-encoded UTF-8 (that is, UTF-8 
that, when decoded to codepoints, reencoded as ISO-8859-1, and redecoded 
as UTF-8, results in the author's originally intended content). It's 
conforming, it's just not what the author intended. Validators should warn 
the users about such cases.


> Even if there is no reasonable text equivalent, there's nothing to say 
> that a blind user wouldn't want to be informed of that image.

Exactly. But if you give alt="", the image will be removed from the output 
stream, _without_ telling the user about its existence.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 20:24:59 GMT

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