Re: DRAFT response Re[3]: Request for PFWG WAI review of Omitting alt Attribute for Critical Content

I agree with this.  Vallidity cannot be syntactically determined in cases 
where judgement has determined that alt is not used whether for good or il. 
>From what I understand, the only way to achieve validity is to rule alt 
either in or out.  Ruling it out of course would produce dire consequenses 
and probably pre-date the web.  Even though it produces a mess, Perhaps as I 
have suggested before, an ew approach to this be sought but nothing I can 
think of would fill the need.  I still feel though that alt is a stepchild.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joshue O Connor" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
To: <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: DRAFT response Re[3]: Request for PFWG WAI review of Omitting 
alt Attribute for Critical Content



Jason White wrote:
>> Is very important. I think we should request that a missing alt value be
>> > considered invalid, although for accessibility reasons it is preferred 
>> > to
>> > the more serious error of marking meaningful content which requires an
>> > alternative with alt=""
>
> I support Charles' comments.
>
> Furthermore, the most important concept is that there should be only two
> syntactically distinct possibilities:
>
> 1. Alt with a non-null string, providing an alternative to the image.
>
> 2. Alt with a null string, signifying that the image is an artifact of
> formatting.
>
> There should not be a third - an omitted alt - which ought, as Charles
> suggests, to trigger a syntax error that can be detected by authoring 
> tools
> and markup validators.

I am also in accord with this.

Josh

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 12:03:32 UTC