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?

-Boris

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT