- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:05:34 +0900
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 2012-08-02 08:39 +0100:
> Hi all,
> I will support this concept/proposal, but think it needs some tweaking
>
> I think the use of an attribute with a more expressive and less easy
> to misunderstand name is useful. aka something along the lines of that
> proposed by hixie.
> So suggest that the attribute name be changed.
Yeah, I agree as well that we need a more expressive and less easy to
misunderstand name -- for a number of reasons, including the core reasons
that Hixie specifically enumerated:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Aug/0004.html
- it's long, so people aren't going to want to type it out
- it's long, so it will stick out in copy-and-paste scenarios
- it's eminently searchable (long unique term) and so will likely lead to
good documentation if it's adopted
> a suggestion "important-image-content-published-with-no-text-alternative"
I could live with that. I could also live with what Hixie proposed,
"generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt". But note that Hixie also
articulated some reasons for the specific parts of that name:
- the "generator" part implies that it's for use by generators, and may
discourage authors from using it
- the "unable" and "required" parts make it obvious that using this
attribute is an act of last resort
So think "generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt" is a bit more
expressive in some specific ways that are valuable.
Anyway, if we can just agree for now that it would be better to have a
more-expressive-and-less-easy-to-understand name, let's do that.
--Mike
--
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 09:05:39 UTC