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

Re: comments on 'private use' section of proposal for ISSUE-31 AND ISSUE-80

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:58:33 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTil5oemhxsbZBzagRT3DTGTypzpBGh1ENI34PeEE@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Steve,

> Why make an exception only for alt? If a document or email is PRIVATE, there
> are many other conformance requirements that could be waived

The email loophole seems to go back to Mail.app:

"Mail.app and other mail clients don't put alt attributes on images
generated in email" - Maciej Stachowiak, April 11, 2007. [1]

"I can only imagine it [alt] being useful as an advanced feature for
experts. Normal people won't understand why a mail program would
prompt them to type in some text about an image, that will then not be
visible to them or their recipient." - Maciej Stachowiak, April 11,
2007. [2]

Ian cited Maciej's [3] email as THE reason for the redefinition of the
image element from a Vlad Alexander type definition [3] to optional
alt in bug 9098 [4].

Best Regards,

[1] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010837.html
[2] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010963.html
[3] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/010837.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 16 July 2010 08:59:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:21 UTC