- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:28:53 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Hi Maciej, > Feel free to update your Change Proposal if you would like to add rationale > or extend it to cover additional mechanisms. Thank you. > For objections, I would > recommend saving those for a survey, Okay. > unless you think this line of > discussion can create broader consensus. The one item that I would like to make sure of before this goes to survey is a missing attribute. As I pointed out: >> As for edge cases where page producers don't know what the image is, >> the solution that WAI CG said that they would not object to [3] is: >> create a "missing" attribute. Creating a "missing" attribute would >> address the business concern of authoring tools wanting to validate to >> HTML5, even if the author does not supply a text alternative. At least >> a "missing" attribute would: >> >> * Allow an image without a text alternative to be honestly labeled for >> what it is: missing, incomplete, lacking substance. >> * Provide a machine checkable mechanism to locate incomplete <img> and >> enable tools to quickly discern where "missing" has been so mistakes >> can be fixed. >> * Support ethical accountability by promoting the development of >> responsible tools and by advocating an effective enabling environment. >> * Has possibilities for crowdsourcing. Is anyone interested in a compromise by creating a missing attribute? I had started a change proposal on it [1] but no one seemed interested. I would need help in writing the spec text. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Lcarlson/ImgElement Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 16 July 2010 12:29:20 UTC