- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:08:51 +0900
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 2012-08-01 07:56 +0000: > We briefly brainstormed some ideas on #whatwg earlier tonight, and one > name in particular that I think could work is the absurdly long > > <img src="..." generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt=""> > > This has several key characteristics that I think are good: > > - it's long, so people aren't going to want to type it out > - it's long, so it will stick out in copy-and-paste scenarios > - it's emminently searchable (long unique term) and so will likely lead > to good documentation if it's adopted > - the "generator" part implies that it's for use by generators, and may > discourage authors from using it > - the "unable" and "required" parts make it obvious that using this > attribute is an act of last resort Speaking as a validator contributor-implementor, I support the addition of this attribute, with the "generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt" name or at the very least with the characteristics of the name Hixie outlines here. Moreover, I intend to implement experimental support for it in the validator.nu engine relatively soon. Henri has also stated that he thinks a related proposal from Ted O'Connor for a similar attribute but with a different name ("relaxed") "would be eligible for implementation in Validator.nu if the proposal were adopted by the HTML WG". http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0020.html I suspect that Ted would be amenable to updating that proposal to use the "generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt" instead of "relaxed", so I think we have convergence on agreement for adding this attribute. > This attribute would be non-conforming except when provided in markup > generated by user agents that find themselves with an image and no > suitable alt="" text. It would be a third option in the "Images whose > contents are not known" section of the spec. It would be mentioned in the > "Guidance for markup generators" section, along with some text about using > one of the other two alternatives when the image in question is the center > of attention on the page (as in the Flickr case), rather than using this > new attribute. It would replace the "generator" exception in the "Guidance > for conformance checkers" section. The note in the "generator" section > would be removed. I support all those changes. I can't speak for Henri on all those points, but note that Henri has also recently indicated he's agreeable to dropping the "generator" section - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0020.html "I agree that <meta name=generator> is a bad solution both because it tries to repurpose existing syntax in a way that's not expected by the current generators of the syntax and because of its lack of granularity." > If we do this, I think we should commit to revisiting the issue in a year > or two, to examine what impact this is having on Web pages: is the > attribute used in inappropriate ways? Is it used badly more than > correctly? Are validator users more or less happy? Most importantly, are > alt="" texts overall better or worse? Have any generators started using > the attribute rather than outputting bogus alt="" values? Agreed. I support making having some kind of "trial period" like what you describe, or a year or two or 18 months. If we do that I would prefer that the spec include some kind of note/warning making it clear that the attribute is experimental and may be dropped or changed significantly within the next two years based on analysis we get back during that time. --Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 06:09:27 UTC