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

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

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:11:27 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinSoy4AM6SvJ+0OojJ8OojVzzosemKr0V4aCKcz@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Leif,

I agree, it might be clearer if the questions were on the proposed
spec text. Maybe something like:

1. DO YOU OBJECT TO RETAINING THE FOLLOWING CURRENT SPEC TEXT, WHICH STATES:

"A conformance checker must report the lack of an alt attribute as an
error unless one of the conditions listed below applies:

* The title attribute is present and has a non-empty value (as described above).
* The img element is in a figure element that contains a figcaption
element that contains content other than inter-element whitespace (as
described above).
* The conformance checker has been configured to assume that the
document is an e-mail or document intended for a specific person who
is known to be able to view images.
* The document has a meta element with a name attribute whose value is
an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "generator". (This case
does not represent a case where the document is conforming, only that
the generator could not determine appropriate alternative text -
validators are required to not show an error in this case to
discourage markup generators from including bogus alternative text
purely in an attempt to silence validators.)"

For Proposal 1 Conformance Checker Rationale please visit:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0050.html


2. DO YOU OBJECT TO REPLACING THE CURRENT SPEC FROM QUESTION ONE WITH
THE REQUIREMENT SET FROM PROPOSAL 2, WHICH STATES:

"A conformance checker must report the lack of a text alternative as
an error. The image element <img> is only valid when at least one of
the following is true. The

* alt attribute is present (empty or non-empty), or
* aria-labelledby attribute present (non-empty only), or
* <img> element is located within a <figure> element that has a
non-empty <figcaption> element, or
* role attribute is present and has a value of "presentation".

For Proposal 3 Conformance Checker Rationale please visit:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126#Rationale


3. DO YOU OBJECT TO REPLACING THE CURRENT SPEC FROM QUESTION ONE WITH
THE REQUIREMENT SET FROM PROPOSAL 3, WHICH STATES:

A conformance checker must report the lack of an alt attribute as an
error unless one of the conditions listed below applies:

* the <img> element is located within a <figure> element that has a
non-empty <figcaption> element, or
* a non-empty aria-labelledby attribute is present."

For Proposal 3 Conformance Checker Rationale please visit:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706#Rationale


4. DO YOU OBJECT TO REPLACING THE CURRENT SPEC FROM QUESTION ONE WITH
THE REQUIREMENT SET FROM PROPOSAL 4, WHICH STATES:

"A conformance checker must report the lack of an alt attribute as an
error unless the <img> element is located within a <figure> element
that has a non-empty <figcaption> element."

For Proposal 4 Conformance Checker Rationale please visit:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707#Rationale


5. DO YOU OBJECT TO REPLACING THE CURRENT SPEC FROM QUESTION ONE WITH
THE REQUIREMENT SET FROM PROPOSAL 5 AND 6, WHICH BOTH STATE:

"A checker must report the lack of an alt attribute as an error unless
the <img> element is located within a <figure> element that has a
non-empty <figcaption> element. 	A conformance checker must report the
lack of an alt attribute on the <img> element as an error."

For Proposal 5 and 6 Conformance Checker Rationale please visit:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510#Rationale
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504#Rationale


6. DO YOU OBJECT TO REMOVING THE FOLLOWING FROM HTML5 (under "Images
whose contents are not known"):

<li>The <code title=attr-title><a
href="dom.html#the-title-attribute">title</a></code> attribute is
present and has a non-empty value.</li>

and (under "4.8.1.1.14 Guidance for conformance checkers"):

<li>The <codetitle=attr-title><a
href="dom.html#the-title-attribute">title</a></code> attribute is
present and has a non-empty value (as <a
href="#unknown-images">described above</a>).</li>

For ISSUE 80 Rationale please visit:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20091203#Rationale

Best Regards,
Laura

On 3/30/11, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> 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


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 16:11:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT