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

Re: [html4all] HTML5 Alternative Text, and Authoring Tools

From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:38:23 +0100
Message-ID: <e2a28a920805150738p3cb79f35hc1f4fb1dad40b460@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

On 15/05/2008, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
> > which seems to me to hit the nail on the head.  ALT is mandatory,
> > but if a user refuses to provide ALT text, then the editing tool
> > is correct to emit INVALID HTML (and, presumably, to warn the user
> > that this regrettable behaviour has been necessary).
> >
>  So conformance criteria for a tool include the possibility of non-
>  conformance for output instances. I think the test suite for
>  an authoring tool is going to be a bit of a syllogism.
>   tool A is conformant because it outputs conformant instances
>   but since it should also be able to output non-conformant instances,
>   conformance is nill. So it's conformant and non-conformant at the same
>   time.
>  And I hope nobody has certification in mind !

A tool is as good as its input - garbage in, garbage out. A compliant
authoring tool can be used to generate non-compliant content. You
might use a compliant authoring tool to create a table-based layout,
which doesn't conform to the spec - that's not the authoring tool's
fault. In the same way, if an author deliberately chooses not to
provide alternative text, the output from the tool should be
considered invalid.


Supplement your vitamins
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 14:39:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:33 UTC