W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Objection to generator decision (Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 validation survey)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:10:11 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTikqHCyAGD=dUOmqx61RUUGcfVUQGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Benjamin, Leif, and Jan,

Benjamin wrote:

> I recommend collaborating with the UAAG authors to ensure that HTML5
> and UAAG2 are consistent:

Jan Richards, UAWG Chair was instrumental in the original WAI-CG alt
consunsus agreement which said that WAI would not object to a missing
mechanism. That document said:
"We have reached the following consensus concerning 'automatically
generated" alternative text: In order to address both the validity and
human generation concerns, we do not oppose the creation of
'autogenerated' and 'missing' attributes where either one of these
could be used to make an image that does not have any human-generated
text alternatives valid. (Note: It is important that this marker is
not included in the alternative text string itself.)' " [1].

Jan explained how it could work in a use case [2] and in an August
2009 email to this group. [3]

Jan, how could Leif's proposal be improved?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0480.html

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5#case2
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1009.html
Received on Sunday, 24 April 2011 21:10:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:28 GMT