W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: ALT as required attribute

From: Bill Mason <w3c@accessibleinter.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 23:30:29 -0800
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030206231859.00cb2c08@accessibleinter.net>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

At 02:16 AM 2/5/2003, Jim Ley wrote:
>"Bill Mason" <w3c@accessibleinter.net> wrote in message
>news:5.2.0.9.0.20030204114046.00c6c118@accessibleinter.net...
>
> > >That would suggest an ALT text of "This image will be available tomorrow"
>is
> > >ok
> >
> > Unless that is the message that the image itself is meant to convey, then
> > that would not in fact be OK.
>
>Correct, however it "serves as content when the image cannot be rendered
>normally" which is all the HTML specification mentions for ALT, the HTML
>specifiation is not a relevant document here.

So I'm correct and you cite the HTML spec to prove it, and then in the next 
breath say the spec is not relevant.

I'm forced to wonder if you even notice what you're writing.

>do not deny me an accessible user agent.

Be sure to show me where I told you I would not allow you to use your UA.

>Mozilla still has bugs with regard to ALT, and javascript, whereby if ALT 
>is changed by
>javascript it is not made available unless images are enabled, I can't use
>buggy browsers.

When exactly did I tell you to use Mozilla?

> > >So there's plenty of support, and as a user who requires this, I fail to
> > >see how you can argue
> > >against it?
> >
> > Among other things, the specs you cite to support your position explicitly
> > refute your stance.
>
>Then I hope you would agree that if the specs to say that (which I don't
>agree with at all), they are broken, as my User Agent is made non-conformant
>to them by making an HTML document accessible to me.  I hope I can count on
>your support on getting them changed.

By this self-serving finale, I can only conclude you're not reading what I 
say or you just plain have no idea what you're talking about, if you really 
think I would agree that the spec is broken.  It's not.  Your understanding 
of it may very well be.   I also find it improbable you're really all that 
worried about changing a spec you've referred to as not relevant multiple 
times.

Nice talking over you.

Bill Mason
Accessible Internet
w3c@accessibleinter.net
http://www.accessibleinter.net/ 
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 02:31:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT