W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ISSUE-31: missing-alt & ISSUE-80: title-alternative - Chairs solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:44:11 -0800
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <7AEEB99F-9B4B-490B-9716-F6228C6F61B8@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Feb 23, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> tp://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-img-element
>> - We have several change proposals submitted; these have some  
>> overlap but are
>> at least partly independent:
>> * Remove specific alternate text requirements for various specific  
>> cases of
>> img and replace with reference to external document.
>>   <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20091209>
>> * Change treatment of role=presentation, aria-labeledy and title in
>> determining what an image element represents.
>>   <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20091203>
>> * Change conformance checker requirements for img.
>>   <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126>
> As far as I know, all of the above have since been given corresponding
> bugs, and a number of these change proposals have thus had parts
> incorporated into the current spec. Rather than having a very vague  
> and
> wide-reaching issue for these, could I suggest that we instead  
> handle the
> specific concerns via narrowly-focused issues resulting from  
> escalation of
> the relevant rejected bugs? Several of them are still in the "needs  
> info"
> stage, and it would be confusing to have multiple parallel  
> discussions on
> those topics.

I reviewed the Details sections of all three of the above Change  

For the first two, it looks like there is only one actual change each  
to the spec requested, and the changes have not been applied. (I  
thought the second Change Proposal had three different changes, but it  
turns out that the latest version only has one.) If we can come to  
agreement on the best way to handle those two proposals, then no  
formal counter-proposal will be necessary. My understanding is that  
the bugs corresponding to those two individual changes have been  

The third proposal suggests a number of changes to conformance rules.  
While the Details section is brief, it actually seems to be missing  
some required information. In particular, it refers to "missing" and  
"generator" attributes which are not defined. It also seems to request  
a change to the style and structure of that section which has already  
been made. Even setting that aside, comparing to the latest draft, the  
proposal seems to suggest multiple changes. I can count seven total.

It adds three conditions where a conformance checker will not signal  
an error:
- @aria-labelledby is present (non-empty only)
- @role="presentation"
- <img> has a "missing" attribute.

It removes three conditions from that list:
- The title attribute is present and has a non-empty value (as  
described above).
- The img element is part of the only paragraph directly in its  
section, and is the only img element without an alt attribute in its  
section, and its section has an associated heading (as described above).
- The conformance checker has been configured to assume that the  
document is an e-mail or document intended for a specific person who  
is known to be able to view images.

(It's not fully clear to me if all the removals are intentional, since  
the proposal is to strike and replace the current text, rather than  
add and remove specific items. Laura, could you clarify whether all  
three removals are intentional?)

It changes one condition; this:
- The document has a meta element with a name attribute whose value is  
an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "generator".
Is replaced with this:
- <img> has an attribute other than alt whose value is an ASCII case- 
insensitive match for the string "generator"

Of those seven changes, I was able to find bugs for three:
Remove title exception: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7362
Remove private communications exception: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8646
Remove aria-labeledby exception: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6496

Those all seem clearly rejected.

I could not find specific bugs for the other four issues, other than  
catchall meta-bugs that referred to multiple issues. Does anyone know  
of specific bugs for the other four changes? If there aren't any,  
which ones would it be helpful to have bugs for?

I think it would be helpful to handle those other four changes through  
the bug process if possible. A month should allow sufficient time to  
do that.

Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 03:44:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC