RE: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.

Justin James wrote:
> Anything that cannot be machine-checked should not be in the spec.

Which of course is why the "even in remote, specifically outlined
circumstances @alt can be considered optional" is fundamentally flawed - it
can either *always* be optional, or *never* be optional, but never
*sometimes*.

> There are too many automated user agents (search engines, screen
> scrapers, etc.) and too many automated authoring tools (anything
> generating HTML without user intervention, 99% of Web apps) out
> there. If it is not verifiable by the logic that general purpose
> programming languages allow, how is the programmer of such tools
> going to ensure that the software generates (or properly consumes)
> HTML that meets the spec? In a nutshell, a non-verifiable HTML spec
> relies upon a "I know it when I see it" definition of things, which
> will get us into trouble. If the user of the spec does not share the
> same internal "I know it when I see it" definitions, then they will
> be meeting the tech specs but not the assumed specs.     

Right.  I can bang together a small PHP app that uploads photos to my blog
and call it a "photo sharing site", and then claim dispensation just like
flickr.  Wrong!

JF