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

Re: Mandatory and Important

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:48:39 -0400
Message-ID: <48B1D737.10801@mit.edu>
To: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
CC: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

John Foliot wrote:
> so in the end we have a
> situation where the only real "loser" is the claim of conformance.

Well, and the credibility of a standards organization that writes 
standards that are impossible to follow in certain cases that the 
standard covers.

Not that this is a big problem, apparently, since some standards 
organizations do produce such standards with regularity.

> The issue boils down to this: should incomplete still be sufficient to be
> conformant?  We argue no.

Why are we privileging some kinds of incompleteness over others? 
Because they're easier to detect by machine?  A document with every 
other word removed is pretty much "incomplete" in the sense of coneying 
the information, but conformant....  Of course a validator can't check 
this, just like it can't check correctness of the alt value (for now). 
I can see the "easy win" argument here: checking for existence of @alt 
is easy, and adding it is likely to improve completeness in many cases. 
  Is that basically the argument for making it required?


P.S.  Still no opinion on making alt required, by the way.
Received on Sunday, 24 August 2008 21:49:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC