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

Re: Issue 31c: Meta generator

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:48:55 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB62917.9010904@gmx.de>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: 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 2012-05-18 11:25, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> ...
> On 16 May 2012 12:58, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
> ...
>           o No evidence was provided that more inaccessible content
>             would be created if the generator exemption is allowed than
>             otherwise. So this was taken to be a weak objection.
 > ...

So far I have tried to stay away from accessibility discussions, but...

It seems to me that it's obvious that if de facto all non-hand authored 
pages do not need to provide @alt, then some of them will fail to supply 
@alt unintentionally.

Not having @alt checked when a generator is specified could lead to a 
situation where people add "generator" to suppress the warnings, and 
others *remove* generator to actually get them (although it would have 
made sense to include it).

So making this depend on the generator information couples things that 
are only slightly related, and creates incentive to add bogus generator 
information when it shouldn't be there, or to remove it when it should 
be there.

And yes, I should have stated that in the survey back then.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 10:49:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:52 UTC