- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 09:02:01 +0200
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "wai-liaison@w3.org" <wai-liaison@w3.org>, Elie Sloïm <elie.sloim@temesis.com>
Olivier GENDRIN wrote:
> (Sorry, i'm late in reading my mailing lists)
[speaking in my own name here ]
I'm not late myself. I followed and read the whole threads,
patiently waiting, wanting to make sure I was not missing
something. And unfortunately, I was not missing something...
The least I can say is the following : I'm shocked.
1. making alt optional in HTML 5 is ridiculous
2. basing conformance on AUTHOR'S INTENT is even worse than
ridiculous, I just don't understand how anyone can
accept that in a so-called "specification" !
3. when I read something like "When the alt attribute is missing, the
image represents a key part of the content. Non-visual user agents
should apply image analysis heuristics to help the user make sense of
the image.", I can't believe my eyes...
4. basing the spec'd definition of alt on common practice on the web
is crazy, absolutely crazy. Smells like "89% of citizens don't like
to pay taxes, let's get rid of taxes".
This whole story is just unbelievable. And what's even more unbelievable
is that most of you don't seem to see it.
</Daniel>
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 07:02:44 UTC