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: Sat, 19 May 2012 16:44:44 +0200
To: mike@w3.org
Cc: public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-ID: <20120519164444182989.93b17015@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Mike, 

since you are developing the experimental HTML5-compatible version of 
Tidy (https://github.com/w3c/tidy-html5), have you considered whether 
to remove Tidy's ability to insert a generator string, in order to 
prevent the effect it has on validation of alternative text for images? 
Have you considered warning Tidy's user about this effect?

Leif H Silli

Sam Ruby, Sat, 19 May 2012 08:18:18 -0400:
> On 05/19/2012 04:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-05-19 09:43, Daniel Glazman wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Do you have any opinion or knowledge of what other tool vendors might
>>>> do under this same circumstance?
>>> 
>>> In short, you're asking tool vendors to remove the only hint in the
>>> markup that will let the viewer of the source of a given page know that
>>> the page was created by their tool?-) Honestly, no, I don't want to
>>> remove that and I suspect other editing tool vendors will have the
>>> same opinion, at first glance. The HTML WG will have to be extremely
>>> persuasive to change that opinion, IMHO...
>>> And I don't see why it should have to be persuasive. HTML5 is here to
>>> make html grow on the basis on common practice. Common practice is that
>>> the generator meta tag is used w/o constraints at this time. Adding
>>> constraints to it seems to me contrary to the design of html5 and the
>>> needs of the industry.
>>> ...
>> 
>> Absolutely. I use the generator information to embed version information
>> (which version of my XSLT code, and run by which XSLT processor); this
>> is extremely useful when trying to find out where problems in a
>> generated page come from.
>> 
>> I do not plan to change this; even if this means that no alt checking
>> will take place in the future.
> 
> In case anybody missed it, these are statements by authors, and can 
> certainly be cited by request to reopen based on new information.
> 
>> Best regards, Julian
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 14:45:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:23 UTC