W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Issue 31c: Meta generator

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:36:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4FD0AE4D.7010902@gmx.de>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 2012-06-07 15:29, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>> This could be a different <meta> element...
>>
>>         <meta name="alternative_text" content="nowarn">
>
> This could work. (Work for alt, that is. I don't expect it to be
> reasonable to come up with names for all possible aspects of validator
> behavior, but I don't expect it to be interesting to suppress
> arbitrary validator behaviors.)

It's ugly, but MUCH better than making it depend on "generator".

>> Or even better, a boolean option built into the validator's UI.
>
> That would not address the problem. Let's recap what problem the spec
> is trying to address: The spec is trying to remove the incentive for
> generator developers to emit empty alt when their generator doesn't
> have or logically cannot have proper alternative text it could stick
> into alt. If suppressing reporting of missing alt was under the
> control of the person who invokes the validator instead of the person
> who programs the markup generator, the person who programs the markup
> generator would still be incented to make the generator emit empty alt
> in order to make the generator always produce valid output so that the
> generator appears to be correct in the eyes of people who judge it by
> validating its output.

+1

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 13:37:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 June 2012 13:37:08 GMT