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

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 validation survey

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 04:01:24 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <F5B04CB1-9201-43E1-BBF1-E50788D74DF6@apple.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>

My apologies for the lack of timely reply from the chairs on this, and your separately submitted Change Proposal. Here are the responses:

On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:20 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Maciej, and the other chairs,
> 	I have 3 prompts for clarification:
> 1) Does this letter and in my replies to Aryeh [*], in combination with 
> the info in the formal objection [#] bring new info to the table, 
> according to the chairs evaluation? Do I need to list the specific 
> points that I think are new?
> [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0461
> [#] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0465

Yes, you should specifically list which points are new.

> 2) Please confirm that I have perceived the following correctly: The 
> generator exception says that lack of alt should not be reported when 
> generator is present. In another part of the decision you say that <img 
> src=* role=presentation> is forbidden. Thus, <img src=* 
> role=presentation> is forbidden except when there is meta generator 
> string. (If so, then there actually *is* a form of per element 
> generator exception.) Likewise: HTML5 says that when IMG is the sole 
> content of an A element, then there, quote, "must" be alt text. Except 
> when there is a generator string.

The decision doesn't take a stand on the relative priority of the generator exception and the requirement for images with role=presentation to also have an empty alt value specified. If you believe this is wrong in the current spec, please file a bug.

> 3) Please clarify what it means when HTML5 says that pages with the 
> generator string are not conforming: 
> ]]This case does not represent a case where the document is conforming[[
>   While the Decision says that they _are_ conforming:
> ]]The presence of <meta name=generator> makes missing alt conforming[[
> 	End of prompts for clarification.

The specification is written in such a way that some content is nonconforming but must not be reported as nonconforming by validators. The decision did not attend to this in detail and was not intended to change this. If you think the spec language here should be changed, please file a bug.

You also submitted a Change Proposal for your reopen request here:

Here are three points of feedback that should be addressed for this Change Proposal to be considered as part of a reopen request:

1) This Change Proposal seems to go beyond the scope of the issue in a number of ways. The decision was about validation. The proposal includes a number of new implementation requirements, including a new CSS selector. Requests like that can be filed as bugs if desired. However, this Change Proposal needs to be narrowed to the scope of the issue.

2) The Change Proposal does not clearly identify what points (if any) are new information.

3) The rationale section does not appear to include justification of the specific changes proposed, just general commentary about the generator exception.

Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 11:02:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:15 UTC