- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:29:20 +0300
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, wai-xtech@w3.org, "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, "public html for all" <list@html4all.org>
On Apr 11, 2008, at 11:23, Steven Faulkner wrote: > 5. Conclusion: barring the introduction of new, good > reasons for a change, the failure of the HTML5 draft to make > @alt on <img> an across-the-board requirement (even if sometimes > it has the value of "") is a bug. Hixie's email on the matter and my previous email(s) on the matter gave a reason: A piece of software gets images from somewhere and puts them automatically out on the Web. What should the developer of that piece of software program it to do when an image arrives from whatever pipe they arrive from without alternative text? How do you require a program to emit something it simply doesn't have without faking it with junk? (Note: Saying that the program should block until human intervention won't be a viable approach. A product that did that would only be supplanted by products that don't. Saying that such products should be programmed to output invalid HTML isn't a viable answer, either. Saying that the program should emit alt='' would lose information about lack of data vs. marking the image as decorative.) Should I conclude that you don't count the reason as a good reason? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 09:30:05 UTC