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

Re: Issue 31c: Meta generator

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:53:14 +0200
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 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>
Message-ID: <20120518205314486573.05378188@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Toby Inkster, Fri, 18 May 2012 15:37:19 +0100:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:48:55 +0200 Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
> Indeed. If the ability to suppress a particular class of error messages
> from validation reports is needed, then it makes more sense use a
> specific signal for that particular preference.
> This could be a different <meta> element...
> 	<meta name="alternative_text" content="nowarn">

I don't see how a new <meta> element - alone - could solve what the 
co-chairs in their analysis described as the "surprisingness to 
authors". [1] 

But, if this new meta was combined with the proposal in bug 16572 (see 
below), then I believe it would solve that issue.

> Or even better, a boolean option built into the validator's UI.

I suppose that you by 'boolean option' have in mind an active choice to 
suppress @alt usage validation. But I really don't like that idea - it 
sends the wrong message. Or why should there be such a choice only for 
@alt? Why not for @src, @href, whatever?

If there is a boolean, then it should be inside the validator: In bug 
BugĀ 16572 - "Meta generator: Validator must say that alt conformance 
check was skipped" [2], I proposed that the spec could stay as it is, 
except that it should require conformance checkers to notify the 
validator user whenever the meta generator exception steps in. 
Subsequently, the validator could *then* offer to validate with "gloves 
off" *or* it could simply recommend to run a tool that can perform alt 
text usage analysis.

I was asked to withdraw bug 16572 [3] , so for the time being it is not 
an active proposal. But I definitely think that *if* the meta generator 
exception solves a real issue, then bug 16572 offers a better solution 
to the surprise problem.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012May/0094

[2] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16572

[3] http://www.w3.org/mid/036501cd11c9$8e103d20$aa30b760$@ca

Leif H Silli
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 18:53:49 UTC

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