Re: img@relaxed CP [was: CfC: Close ISSUE-206: meta-generator by Amicable Resolution]

Steve Faulkner <>, 2012-08-01 02:11 +0100:

> "When users attempt to validate documents and end up getting a large amount
> of error messages about potential problems which they have no means to
> correct directly themselves, we risk having them just give up and quit
> using the validator altogether."
> i would think this is a concern for more than alt errors, there are many
> potential errors emitted that may or may not be under the authors control,
> such as the use of custom attributes on any element, would it not makes
> sense in this case to allow the relaxed attribute to be a global attribute
> on usable on any element?

I can imagine that it might make sense for some other elements. But I think
we should focus first only on trying to get agreement about issue 206 and
so restricting the discussion for now to whether the benefits of adding it
to the img element outweigh the costs.


P.S. Depending on how issue 206 turns out, I'm sure we could consider other
possible uses for this "relaxed" attribute idea later. I personally don't
think it would ever make sense to have it as a global attribute -- because
the meaning of it, and any effect of it with regard to validation, would be
closely bound to whatever particular element it might be used on; e.g., in
the case of the img element, it would mean very specifically that validators
are not required by default to report and error for the absence of the alt
attribute for that img element. For an element that which doesn't have alt
as one of its allowed attributes to begin with, "relaxed" would of course
need to have different meaning that specifically relates to some
document-conformance constraint for that element.

Michael[tm] Smith

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 06:51:54 UTC