W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2012

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

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:27:25 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJQvAud0WQC6VtNG8TNyQ3RYMsF20pRDNt0vrSE1LMsestw5VQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
>> how does it address the repeated error messages that <g:plusone> tags
>> generate? What of non-standard values for meta@names? Would we also be
>> using @relaxed on <meta>? (<meta name="ziggy" relaxed="">)
>
> It doesn't. It's not intended to solve those problems. In hindsight maybe I
> should not mention those at all. I brought them in just as examples to
> contrast the current problem with. Maybe it's not helpful to have that
> contrast here now in this discussion, if it distracts from the immediate
> problem we're trying to solve.

As long as they are being contrasted:

The crucial difference is that if the validator complains that alt is
missing, it's not an intended outcome if the markup is edited to say
alt="" (which is the most likely edit) (unless the image is of such
nature that it's OK to make screen readers not acknowledge its
presence) from the point of view of the purpose of the conformance
requirements (the purpose being trying to get people to supply proper
text alternatives). However, if the validator complains about
<g:plusone> being present, editing the markup so that it's no longer
present is an intended outcome (not necessarily a super-useful outcome
but intended nonetheless).

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 13:27:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:25 UTC