W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Need differentiator between "no alt text provided" and "no alt text necessary"

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:56:48 -0600
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1234393008.28267.1362.camel@pav.lan>

On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 12:33 -0800, James Craig wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> > I've added a note that says:
> >
> >   In a conforming document, the absence of the alt attribute indicates
> >   that the image is a key part of the content but that a textual
> >   replacement for the image was not available when the image was
> >   generated.
> >
> > Does that help?
> 
> That's perfect. Thank you.

Did we just achieve consensus between the HTML and the PFWG
on ISSUE-31 missing-alt?

i.e. James, are you pretty sure the rest of the PF WG agrees
with you?

Matt May, Chaals, etc. is Ian's position close enough
to your own? It works for me. Do we have 3 independent parties
in agreement, I wonder?

(FWIW, editorially, I like the suggestion of
3 Feb 2009 08:47:11 +0200 to include the two by three table)

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 22:57:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC