- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:56:48 -0600
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 12:33 -0800, James Craig wrote: > On Feb 6, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > I've added a note that says: > > > > In a conforming document, the absence of the alt attribute indicates > > that the image is a key part of the content but that a textual > > replacement for the image was not available when the image was > > generated. > > > > Does that help? > > That's perfect. Thank you. Did we just achieve consensus between the HTML and the PFWG on ISSUE-31 missing-alt? i.e. James, are you pretty sure the rest of the PF WG agrees with you? Matt May, Chaals, etc. is Ian's position close enough to your own? It works for me. Do we have 3 independent parties in agreement, I wonder? (FWIW, editorially, I like the suggestion of 3 Feb 2009 08:47:11 +0200 to include the two by three table) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 22:57:00 UTC