- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:33:55 +0200
- To: "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:37:35 +0200, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca> wrote:
> While Anne may not find it necessary to add alternative text, he is not
> dependant on it, thus his motivations for adding or not adding are
> skewed by his personal perception and reality.
This seems to miss the point of the article.
> *THAT's* why making the alt attribute mandatory is so wrong.
I assume you meant the opposite? I'm also not really sure what requiring
it improves? If it's required I'd have to add three characters to make my
application pass the machine checkable conformance criteria: <img alt>.
Would that help anyone?
The scenario we're trying to solve is what's the best technical solution
for everyone if you have these contraints:
1. The user is not going to be bothered providing replacement text.
(Or any other metadata for that matter.)
2. The application author wants all his pages to be conforming.
(Well, at least for the machine checkable criteria.)
(Removing html4all list as I don't think I can post there.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 21 September 2007 22:34:17 UTC