- From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:56:41 +0300
- To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, Al Gilman <alfred.s.gilman@ieee.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Hi Dave,
On Aug 22, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Dave Singer wrote:
>
> At 10:05 -0400 22/08/08, David Poehlman wrote:
>> not optional, missing. If it is missing it breaks spec but is
>> still missing
>> so tools/authors need to fix it so that it is not missing. The {}
>> for
>> instance was the hack to prevent missing. I am saying that it
>> should be
>> real.
>
> But if missing is non-conformant, most sane tool authors will insert
> it to avoid a conformance failure.
>
> Then they insert alt="" (a lie) or alt="random text" (useless).
With the earlier suggested norm:
* authoring tools MUST NOT add any text that is a placeholder for alt
text (e.g., "this is an image")
why would Flickr decide to violate that norm rather than the one that
says "authors must provide suitable alt text'.
> Look, honestly, I don't want to sound harsh, and I value the
> dialogue, but until someone is actually willing to provide an
> alternative answer to the question -- not duck it, change it, or
> deny the problem exists -- we are just annoying each other. The
> spec. at least contains *an* answer, and it seems as if the
> discussion of role might converge on another.
The spec contains an answer that — as a good number of us have
repeatedly explained — fails to address the use cases and simultaneous
address the needs of the users, authors, authoring tools, etc. When
there are obvious alternatives that do meet those needs why would we
simply let the current draft be our "good enough" answer?
Take care,
Rob
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 16:57:37 UTC