W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > May 2008

Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.

From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 08:17:04 -0400
Message-ID: <326789B9428B41F58C599487BCBC7CAB@HANDS>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <wai-liaison@w3.org>

you asked why so I will tell you.  If I am in the business of Q A and get 
hired by an entity to check their sites, I am not the author so I need to 
know that validity has or has not been achieved?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>; "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>; 
<wai-liaison@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require 
producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.



Steven Faulkner wrote:
> Seems like a good reason to revisit any examples of requirements in
> the spec and provide requirements that are practical to independently
> test conformance, rather than make requirements that cannot be tested
> by anybody other than the author.

Why should we try to optimise the conformance criteria to be machine
checkable by people other than the author (or those affiliated with the
author)?  Machines are inherently limited in their ability to check
documents, so reducing the conformance criteria to be mostly machine
checkable isn't such a good idea; and optimising for people other than
authors seems misguided.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:17:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:49 GMT