Whose problem Re: [html4all] New issue: IMG section of HTML5 draft contradicts WCAG 1 & WCAG 2 (draft)

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:09:40 +0200, Ivan Enderlin <w3c@hoa-project.net>  
wrote:

...
> maybe a null ALT attribute is more semantically correct than have no ALT  
> attribute.

No, they have different meanings in current usage, and it would be bad to  
conflate the two meanings. (One is "this image does not need an alternate"  
and the other is "there is no alternate available for this image").

> If the program that produces HTML content cannot writte a correct  
> alternative text, so they should let it empty/null.

No. That has long been recognised [1] as a bad idea, because it confuses  
the two very different cases above.

> In this way, the HTML will be correct, but ... not accessible yes.  
> Remember, it's up to the program to deal with this situation, not to  
> HTML or to WCAG, or the HTML WG nor PF WG.

Actually, it *is* up to the working groups to design a language that  
promotes accessibility. I would argue, and I think the existence of the  
PF-WG is evidence of this, that W3C by policy considers improved  
accessibilty outcomes as extremely important. I would further argue that  
HTML-WG is not liekly to get a spec to recomendation if it destroys  
accessibility.

Still, the reason for this discussion is that we are indeed trying to find  
the best solution to this problem.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 12:09:59 UTC