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

Re: ISSUE-31 and ISSUE-80 - Straw Poll A for Objections

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:13:41 +0200
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110330171341745311.05bf48c3@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Paul Cotton, Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:03:54 +0000:
> ISSUE-31 and ISSUE-80 - Straw Poll A for Objections

> Instead we are asking WG members to indicate their 
> position on whether the following: Aria-labelledby, Role attribute 
> with a value of "presentation", Generator mechanism, Email exception, 
> Title and Figcaption, should be permitted or not permitted when the 
> image element is missing the alt attribute.

This must be the most confusing poll ever. And the presentation of the 
options is questionable:

None of the options unpermit @title in any case. (It would be logical 
if they did for the role=presentation case, but none of them discuss 
this, it seems.) But despite that fact, you make it seem - in this 
letter and in the poll - as if in particular Req Set 5/6 unpermits 
@title unless there is a non-empty @alt. 

It is the opposite way: in Req Set 5/6, then @title triggers a need for 
a non-empty @alt. What the poll is really about is which - if any - 
conditions that take away the need for an @alt attribute. As the 
summary page states:

]] what to do about validation when the image element is missing the 
alt attribute [[

And the 'Disallows' and 'Allows' of the summary page refer to whether 
*validation* or *conformance checking* allows or disallows the lack of 
@alt in such and such combinations.

Req Set 1 and Req Set 5/6 *agree* that the @title case, the figcaption 
case, the generator mechanism case and the email exception case 
represent *non-presentational* images. They disagree about whether any 
of the conditions take away the need for a non-empty @alt.

Validators will, for instance, not say that @alt is unpermitted, unless 
there also is a @src. They will instead focus on the lack of @src and 
ask author to add @src. But you make it sound as if lack of @alt 
forbids or permits @title and @aria-labelledby. However, those to 
issues should, in principle, be validated independent of each others. 
Thus, authors should be able to add @title/@aria-labelledby even if the 
image lacks an @alt. However, they should - in that case -  *also* be 
asked to add @alt. But if the @alt content is the empty string and - or 
- has role="presentation", then the image should not contain attributes 
that contradict the presenational role. 

Did you, intentionally, ask in this up-side-down-ish way, in order to 
make us think? If so, then I'm OK with it. But there is the other 
option that you have an understanding of the options in the summary 
page that doesn't match the that of the summary page.

Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 15:14:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC