- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:36:13 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 2012-06-07 15:29, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: >> This could be a different <meta> element... >> >> <meta name="alternative_text" content="nowarn"> > > This could work. (Work for alt, that is. I don't expect it to be > reasonable to come up with names for all possible aspects of validator > behavior, but I don't expect it to be interesting to suppress > arbitrary validator behaviors.) It's ugly, but MUCH better than making it depend on "generator". >> Or even better, a boolean option built into the validator's UI. > > That would not address the problem. Let's recap what problem the spec > is trying to address: The spec is trying to remove the incentive for > generator developers to emit empty alt when their generator doesn't > have or logically cannot have proper alternative text it could stick > into alt. If suppressing reporting of missing alt was under the > control of the person who invokes the validator instead of the person > who programs the markup generator, the person who programs the markup > generator would still be incented to make the generator emit empty alt > in order to make the generator always produce valid output so that the > generator appears to be correct in the eyes of people who judge it by > validating its output. +1 Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 13:37:07 UTC