- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:03:22 -0500
- To: <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>
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