- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:20:59 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej, and the other chairs, I have 3 prompts for clarification: 1) Does this letter and in my replies to Aryeh [*], in combination with the info in the formal objection [#] bring new info to the table, according to the chairs evaluation? Do I need to list the specific points that I think are new? [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0461 [#] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0465 2) Please confirm that I have perceived the following correctly: The generator exception says that lack of alt should not be reported when generator is present. In another part of the decision you say that <img src=* role=presentation> is forbidden. Thus, <img src=* role=presentation> is forbidden except when there is meta generator string. (If so, then there actually *is* a form of per element generator exception.) Likewise: HTML5 says that when IMG is the sole content of an A element, then there, quote, "must" be alt text. Except when there is a generator string. 3) Please clarify what it means when HTML5 says that pages with the generator string are not conforming: ]]This case does not represent a case where the document is conforming[[ While the Decision says that they _are_ conforming: ]]The presence of <meta name=generator> makes missing alt conforming[[ End of prompts for clarification. Statement of new fact/opinion: It seems that if the validator only performs a second degree validation when 'generator' string is present, then this fact should not be kept hidden from the persons which are making use of the validator, be they users, authors, someones responsible for quality control - as well as generator developers themselves. For the generator developers, this exception means that if the author wants to get full quality validation, then he/she has to remove the generator string - thus loosing the generator info, and with possible worse ranking on stats etc as a result. Identification is usually a matter of pride, but this decision connect the generator string with lower quality. The irony is that even HTML Tidy spits out a generator string ... Validators as authoring tools fail to be authoring tools if authors cannot get back relevant info from them without editing their code first (that is: removing the generator string). For authors and tool vendors, the visibility of the fact the page is validated according to a lower bar is a matter of fair competition and same rules. Some kind of "consumer html", which the big tool vendors can spit out, without getting any negative validation messages of any kind, is unfair competition. We could have "loose" or "transitional" stamp somewhere, that *anyone* could use. But this, which some completely undefined group of "hand-authored" pages are barred from using, is not anything we can have. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 07:21:27 UTC