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

RE: Flickr and alt

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:38:21 -0400
To: "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: "'Gez Lemon'" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "'Patrick H. Lauke'" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <058001c90347$bdab20c0$39016240$@com>

Lief -

This all sounds good to me!

J.Ja

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:lhs@malform.no]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:07 PM
> To: Justin James
> Cc: 'Gez Lemon'; 'Patrick H. Lauke'; wai-xtech@w3.org; public-
> html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Flickr and alt
> 
> Justin James 2008-08-20 07.24:
> 
> >> Leif Halvard Silli Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:12 PM
>    [ ... @role ...]
> > The reason why I suggest that we allow it to be omitted, is
> > because it is a pretty large burden to impose on HTML authors
> 
> 
> First time I heard about @role, I was negative ... But it sunk in.
> 
> > to ask them to try to categorize every tag they use into the
> > @role system. Creating a role called "unspecified", and
> > spec'ing it so that anything where @role is omitted or equal to
> > empty string is equivalent to @role=unspecified  [...]
> 
> 
> Unspecified role gives unspecific validation ...
> 
> 
> > One contributing factor in why I feel this way, is that I am of
> > the opinion that @role should be available on nearly every
> > element in the body of an HTML document.
> 
> So that all would default to role=undefined, you mean. OK.
> 
> >> Some tryouts for the last question: If the default value was
> 
>      [...]
> 
> >> (4) role="private-undefined" (the name of the default role
> >> should seem unfitting for "public" pages) => validator
> >> announces
> 
> >>
> 
> >> [...] (c) that such a value is incorrect for pages
> >> [...] in need of a measure of universal access and
> >> accessibility [ .. etc ..]
> 
> >
> > I tend to favor a behavior of missing/empty/"unspecified" @role
> > value to behave consistently with Karl's proposal from
> > yesterday (at least in regards to @alt), of "@alt is a
> > mandatory attribute, even if it is simply empty, see WCAG for
> > accessibility information". It is simply the best proposal I
> > have seen on the subject, despite the hundreds of emails on the
> > topic. That being said, your option #4 is darned close to what
> > I would expect and want, and I suspect it's what you favor too,
> > given the detail you give it in your description. I do not
> > think the two ideas are incompatible, and indeed, I think that
> > they complement each other extraordinarily well!
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should change its name to role=unspecified. ;-)
> 
> >> Over all, @role would open many new possibilities for better
> >> validation services:
> >>
> 
> >> Repeated alt could trigger a response. [...] Some loopholes
> >> could become narrower. [...] @Role would allow the validator
> >> to apply "heuristics". [...]
> 
> 
> > I agree 100%! I think that @role not only opens up great things
> > for validation, but also for search engines and any other
> > "Semantic Web"-consuming/parsing application. But I also think
> > it's way too much to ask of many (if not most) HTML authors to
> > always use it, let alone use it correctly (much like @alt,
> > sadly).
> 
> If we keep the option of role=unspefified, then we would get at
> least two levels of validation. And that might be fine.
> --
> leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 04:39:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:57 UTC