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

Re: [html4all] several messages about alt

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:16:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4802DAAA.8050307@malform.no>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
CC: Dannii <curiousdannii@gmail.com>, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>, Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Karl Dubost 08-04-14 04.55:   ­  
> Le 14 avr. 2008 à 11:36, Leif Halvard Silli a écrit :
>> The difference from "transitional" is that 'unready' should be 
>> something that is meant to be temporary, for each document. And not 
>> like the proposed WYSIWYG flag which, just as the trasinsitional 
>> types, are offered as a less strivt version of HTML. 'Unready' is 
>> mean to help the author reach the goal. It is not meant as an 
>> alternative goal.
>>
> "meant to be", "should", etc.
> The issue is crippling into the language. "Transitional" is almost 
> never used as it was "meant to be", nor implemented in such a way to 
> help the transition. I guess it's a case of bad design choice, that 
> was difficult to know in advance that it would be. But we can try to 
> avoid repeating the same mistakes.

However, you can validate a 'transitional' document. Wheras, it would be 
impossible to get a document stamped with 'unready' to validate.. 
(Allthough, you could of course validate = check it for errors.) 
Therefore, an 'unready' stamp, placed there by the author himself, would 
not be same thing. (Wheras a WYSIWYG stamp would be something of the same.)
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 04:17:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:54 UTC