- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:19:15 +0000
- To: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>
- Cc: 'Al Gilman' <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
> > Josh and I would seem to be agreed that "refuse to process > > such a page in the browser" is justified for a critical-content image > > that is lacking @alt. Just to be clear, I would not want the browser to refuse to render the page even if a critical alt is missing. That would be a situation where the cure is worse than the disease. > 3. WCAG requires @alt (WCAG1) or the function that in HTML4 > is provided by @alt (WCAG2) [editorial note -- add links] I want the @alt to be mandatory for critical content for conformance for WCAG 1.0 and also [insert new attribute here] for WCAG 2.0. That puts accessibility into the right domain. Should the browser still continue to render pages that don't conform, yes. Should authors right better code and mark-up content in a proper way, yes. Should the browser not render a page that is not proper or does not conform? No. Cheers Josh
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 11:49:37 UTC