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.

Gez

-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 14:39:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:17 GMT