- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:51:16 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Steve Faulkner, Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:56:39 -0800: >> As result, there will be nil - >> zero - normative requirements - > > no there will be the machine checkable requirements > presence or lack of the alt attribute. OK. So on/off validation, like in HTML4: Only a check of whether the alt attribute is present but no check of its content. That would touch many issues and subjects that we have debated - like the claims that it is sometimes better to not offer any @alt. One could argue that HTML5's current approach, were there is no simple predicability about whether it validate to not drop the @alt, is better. So the CP should probably explain why this change would be better. On the other side: The current HTML5-conformance validation — like the HTML4 validation — has a 'loop hole subset': Presence of an empty alt attribute, will always make the img validate - regardless of generator string or other gotchas. So, while an HTML5 validator will display an error for <a href=foo ><img src=bar ></a> it will not display an error for <a href=foo ><img src=bar alt='' ></a> Thus, the simple route to validity, for lazy authors and authoring tools, remains to include an empty alt=''. I guess this speaks in favor of the change you have worked on. But then again, it could perhaps also be possible to plug this hole in the HTML5 validation - e.g. by making the latter example an error. -- Leif H Silli
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 18:51:50 UTC