- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:54:54 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9214 --- Comment #22 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-09-07 14:54:48 --- (In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #20) > > Bug triage sub-team thinks this is fixed. Assigning to Steve to verify fix; if > > so, please change status to "verified", otherwise ping bug triage sub-team. > This bug isn't fixed as @role="presentation" isn't a part conformance criteria > in HTML5. WAI CG recommended that it should be in their "Consensus Resolutions > on Text alternatives in HTML 5" document. > http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 Laura, so far you have not offered any direct response to Ian's resolution in comment #16, other adding tracker request etc. Because of this, I find it hard to know whether I agree or disagree that this bug is solved. I think it could be helpful if you pinpointed the exact things you disagree with in his resolution. If you could also show a code example, and explain the problems with the way HTML5 currently requires conformance checkers to check that piece of code, then that would be helpful too. Thanks. PS: This is how I understand the conflict betweent the Consensus Document and HTML5: Per the Consensus Document, then the very presence of role="presentation" - irrespective of empty @alt, non-empty @alt or no alt attribute at all, would make the <img> valid. Whereas, in contrast, HTML5, section 4.8.1.1.14 (Guidance for conformance checkers) fails to list presence of role="presentation" as a condition when it would be permitted to not add the @alt attribute. (Quote: "A conformance checker must report the lack of an alt attribute as an error unless one of the conditions listed below applies:" ) Thus, i suppose you want @role="presentation" to make <img> elements which lack any ue of @alt, as valid. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 14:54:55 UTC