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

Re: several messages about alt

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:31:35 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0804130731g52b3cd40u71a03b198021f1e6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>  In theory, HTML5 conformance and HTML5 validity are the same thing. In
> practice, though, people tend to think that validity is what a validator
> checks, which is machine-checkable conformance criteria.

Yes, HTML5 conformance is what I meant. Thanks for the explanation.

>  Examples of non-machine-checkable conformance criteria:
>   * "The img must not be used as a layout tool." (HTML 5)
>   * "Authors must only use elements, attributes, and attribute values for
> their appropriate semantic purposes." (HTML 5)

I think the above are very similar, for many of us, to "always supply
appropriate alt text with an image" which may complicate our

For the type of publishing I usually deal with (not personal HTML
emails) I draw on WCAG for advice on quality checking (conformance).
I'm fine if HTML5 conformance criteria are targeted to cover a broader
range of HTML use (personal emails, photo blogs etc). WCAG includes
valid markup as a criteria, then builds upon it with extra checks and
balances to optimise accessibility. This approach should continue to
work well.

(in this individual's opinion).

Received on Sunday, 13 April 2008 14:32:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:32 UTC