Meta-Generator Issue (was FW: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 validation survey)

As discussed on today's call:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 4:01 AM
> To: Leif Halvard Silli
> Cc: HTMLWG WG
> Subject: Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-31 / ISSUE-80 validation
> survey
> 
> 
> My apologies for the lack of timely reply from the chairs on this, and
> your separately submitted Change Proposal. Here are the responses:
> 
> On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:20 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 
> > Maciej, and the other chairs,
> >
> > 	I have 3 prompts for clarification:
> >
> > 1) Does this letter and in my replies to Aryeh [*], in combination
> with
> > the info in the formal objection [#] bring new info to the table,
> > according to the chairs evaluation? Do I need to list the specific
> > points that I think are new?
> > [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0461
> > [#] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0465
> 
> Yes, you should specifically list which points are new.
> 
> >
> > 2) Please confirm that I have perceived the following correctly: The
> > generator exception says that lack of alt should not be reported when
> > generator is present. In another part of the decision you say that
> <img
> > src=* role=presentation> is forbidden. Thus, <img src=*
> > role=presentation> is forbidden except when there is meta generator
> > string. (If so, then there actually *is* a form of per element
> > generator exception.) Likewise: HTML5 says that when IMG is the sole
> > content of an A element, then there, quote, "must" be alt text.
> Except
> > when there is a generator string.
> 
> The decision doesn't take a stand on the relative priority of the
> generator exception and the requirement for images with
> role=presentation to also have an empty alt value specified. If you
> believe this is wrong in the current spec, please file a bug.
> 
> >
> > 3) Please clarify what it means when HTML5 says that pages with the
> > generator string are not conforming:
> >
> > ]]This case does not represent a case where the document is
> conforming[[
> >
> >   While the Decision says that they _are_ conforming:
> >
> > ]]The presence of <meta name=generator> makes missing alt
> conforming[[
> >
> > 	End of prompts for clarification.
> 
> The specification is written in such a way that some content is
> nonconforming but must not be reported as nonconforming by validators.
> The decision did not attend to this in detail and was not intended to
> change this. If you think the spec language here should be changed,
> please file a bug.
> 
> You also submitted a Change Proposal for your reopen request here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0480.html
> 
> Here are three points of feedback that should be addressed for this
> Change Proposal to be considered as part of a reopen request:
> 
> 1) This Change Proposal seems to go beyond the scope of the issue in a
> number of ways. The decision was about validation. The proposal
> includes a number of new implementation requirements, including a new
> CSS selector. Requests like that can be filed as bugs if desired.
> However, this Change Proposal needs to be narrowed to the scope of the
> issue.
> 
> 2) The Change Proposal does not clearly identify what points (if any)
> are new information.
> 
> 3) The rationale section does not appear to include justification of
> the specific changes proposed, just general commentary about the
> generator exception.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 15:37:06 UTC