- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:44:11 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9214 --- Comment #27 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-09-07 16:44:10 --- (In reply to comment #26) > (In reply to comment #24) > > (In reply to comment #22) > > 4. alt="" WITHOUT an accompanying role="presentation" triggers a > > non-critical validator warning recommending use of role="presentation" (but > > @alt="" remains technically valid) > > > > INTENT: To encourage the use of role=presentation - by encouraging (but > > not requiring) its use even when alt="" is used. > > This is *not* met. However, you haven't raised any issue/bug about it either, > or have you? The authors of the ARIA 1.0 specification have created an XHTML 1.1 based DTD. One should think that if it was crucial that an <img> without any @alt attribute was considered valid, whenever the <img> has role="presentation", then the ARIA 1.0 authors would have offered a DTD which allowed you to ommit the @alt attribute when role="presentation" is present. However, as you can verify for yourself, by pasting the the mini-document below into the validator at http://validator.w3.org, the DTD for XHTML1.1 +ARIA 1.0, does not allow you to do that. Thus either the Consensus Document is simply not specific enough to avoid all possible confusion about what it suggests (that's what I think) or they simply go further than the ARIA 1.0 spec allow itself to go. Docuent Example with ARIA 1.0 DTD: <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/schemata/xhtml-aria-1.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> <head><title></title></head><body> <p> <img src="foo" role="presentation" /></p> </body></html> -- 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 16:44:13 UTC