- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:30:22 +0200
- To: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, Al Gilman <alfred.s.gilman@ieee.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
At 10:05 -0400 22/08/08, David Poehlman wrote:
>not optional, missing. If it is missing it breaks spec but is still missing
>so tools/authors need to fix it so that it is not missing. The {} for
>instance was the hack to prevent missing. I am saying that it should be
>real.
But if missing is non-conformant, most sane tool authors will insert
it to avoid a conformance failure.
Then they insert alt="" (a lie) or alt="random text" (useless).
Look, honestly, I don't want to sound harsh, and I value the
dialogue, but until someone is actually willing to provide an
alternative answer to the question -- not duck it, change it, or deny
the problem exists -- we are just annoying each other. The spec. at
least contains *an* answer, and it seems as if the discussion of role
might converge on another.
--
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 16:32:27 UTC