- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:17:10 +0300
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Ted (Mike, Henri, others): > > Is there any possibility of merging this proposal with the "Mint a new > attribute for relaxing alt attribute conformance criteria in certain > situations" proposal: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-206 > > Yes, there are clear differences (they even are enumerated in Laura's > updated proposal), but it appears to me that these two proposals are > relatively close in spirit. The essential difference (other than spelling) > appears to be the default? The default validator behavior is the whole point of Ted's proposal, so merging "If a conformance checker encounters an <img> element with an incomplete attribute specified, it should by default report it. However, it may supply an option to suppress such an error." from Laura's proposal would defeat the whole point of Ted's proposal. As for the name of the attribute, any of "incomplete", "relaxed" or "noalt" would work for me. (Other names might be sensible, too.) I don't really see the point of Laura's proposal. If the default was to report the presence of the "incomplete" attribute, the validator might as well reports the absence of the alt attribute instead. As far as I can tell, with the default behavior Laura is proposing, then the attribute would be redundant. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 06:17:40 UTC