- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:54:51 +0900
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Le 23 août 2008 à 12:41, Laura Carlson a écrit : > No it doesn't. Use the tools/services and let them be nonconforming. > From an architectural point of view, the structure of an image isn't > complete without alternate text so for that reason alone it > shouldn't conform. I understand your approach but there is an issue with this. In an home made tool it is perfectly possible to do as you recommend. Though it makes it difficult if you want to keep the markup validity of your document like processing them with xslt. In a tool which has been made to be conformant, and will not let use the alternative to be non conformant, that will become a major hurdle. There are different levels of conformances * Markup conformance * Accessibility conformance With a mandatory "alt" attribute, my only reasonable solution (in the case of a personal usage) is something along: <img src="boo" alt=""/> which is fine (for me). It has other consequences when you come to switch from private to public. The tool will not notice if the alt is here on purpose (decorative image) or not. /me is trying to find a solution which is not perfect but acceptable for everyone making compromises. -- Karl Dubost - W3C http://www.w3.org/QA/ Be Strict To Be Cool
Received on Sunday, 24 August 2008 22:55:26 UTC