Re: Propose removing "An image in an e-mail or document intended for a specific person who is known to be able to view images" from the HTML5 spec.

On 12 Apr 2008, at 4:00 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>> The part in the HTML 5 spec (see below). about it being OK to  
>> leave the
>> alt off if you are sending an email to someone who is known to view
>> images, is unecessary and just a variation on the "disabled people  
>> don't
>> use my web site, so I don't need to make it accessible" argument. It
>> adds nothing of use to the spec apart from providing another dubious
>> reason to omit the alt attribute.
>> I propose it is removed.
> So say that my partner e-mails me personally an e-mail that contains a
> diagram of our new apartment's floor layout.
> What possible benefit is there to making that e-mail non-conforming?
> (There's no way that my partner will describe the image textually, I
> assure you.)

Occam's razor.  There's no benefit to putting in a special rule to
make it conforming.

In the PFWG charter, it's called 'small footprint'

In the HTML Design Principles it's called "Solve Real Problems."

Also, under "Priority of Constituencies" the exception is not
justified.  There is no user problem for you if the page is non- 
That's the precedent set by how the browsers process HTML now.
So don't fix a non-problem.  Making such a special rule is
"proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone."

The HTML *specification* should be about the markup.  This rule
digresses too far into business-process issues.  There is no
good reason to clutter the specification with such off-topic assertions.


> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                ) 
> \._.,--....,'``.    fL
>       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _ 
> \  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'-- 
> (,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Sunday, 13 April 2008 15:02:34 UTC