- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:48:39 -0400
- To: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
- CC: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
John Foliot wrote: > so in the end we have a > situation where the only real "loser" is the claim of conformance. Well, and the credibility of a standards organization that writes standards that are impossible to follow in certain cases that the standard covers. Not that this is a big problem, apparently, since some standards organizations do produce such standards with regularity. > The issue boils down to this: should incomplete still be sufficient to be > conformant? We argue no. Why are we privileging some kinds of incompleteness over others? Because they're easier to detect by machine? A document with every other word removed is pretty much "incomplete" in the sense of coneying the information, but conformant.... Of course a validator can't check this, just like it can't check correctness of the alt value (for now). I can see the "easy win" argument here: checking for existence of @alt is easy, and adding it is likely to improve completeness in many cases. Is that basically the argument for making it required? -Boris P.S. Still no opinion on making alt required, by the way.
Received on Sunday, 24 August 2008 21:49:22 UTC