On Aug 7, 2012, at 9:53 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Anyway, do you have a concrete suggestion for an alternate name? I'm not
wedded to generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt and I doubt Hixie is
either. It's just a proposal that came up after 15 minutes of brainstorming
on
Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com, 2012-08-08 01:10 -0700:
Lacking any other proposed alternative? Not only do we have Ted's
original suggestion of relaxed, but also this whole subthread of name
suggestions:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012Aug/0038.html
Yeah in
Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi, 2012-08-05 16:01 +0300:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Agreed. I support making having some kind of trial period like what you
describe, or a year or two or 18 months. If we do that I would prefer that
the spec include
Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi, 2012-08-05 15:52 +0300:
While I agree with the sentiment the name of the attribute
communicates, its length is enough of a problem to probably make it
fail:
1) Like a namespace URL, it's too long to memorize correctly, so it's
easier for the generator developer
On 5.8.2012 15:52, Henri Sivonen wrote:
People who are not the developer of the generator use validators to
assess the quality of the markup generated by the generator.
People can use tools in various ways. We cannot prevent that. But it
does not need to dictate the design of tools. People can
Jukka K. Korpela writes:
On 5.8.2012 15:52, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Alice anticipates Bob's reaction and preemptively makes her
generator output alt=
So? Whose problem is this?
It hurts users browsing without images of pages generated by that
generator.
If the validator can do something
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
After all, what's the point of using validation if you use a generator?
People who are not the developer of the generator use validators to
assess the quality of the markup generated by the generator.
You would in effect be
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Michael[tm] Smith m...@w3.org wrote:
Agreed. I support making having some kind of trial period like what you
describe, or a year or two or 18 months. If we do that I would prefer that
the spec include some kind of note/warning making it clear that the
attribute
Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch, 2012-08-01 07:56 +:
We briefly brainstormed some ideas on #whatwg earlier tonight, and one
name in particular that I think could work is the absurdly long
img src=... generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt=
This has several key characteristics that I
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-24 21:58, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote:
The spec currently disallows conformance checkers from reporting
img elements without alt= attributes as an error when meta
name=generator is present[1].
2012-08-01 10:56, Ian Hickson wrote:
Only generators are in a position where they might have to
include images for which they lack the ability to provide alt texts.
A simple counter-example to that: A human employee who has been told to
add some images to a web page, without having been told
Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi schrieb am Wed, 01 Aug 2012
11:53:41 +0300:
2012-08-01 10:56, Ian Hickson wrote:
[…]
The problem is that some generators -- e.g. software that converts
word processor documents to HTML -- are in a position where they
sometimes cannot possibly
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote:
This is an improvement, but I think Edward O'Connor's points still apply.
Indeed. The spec edit is a rather disappointing response.
I think it would be better to keep the alt attribute always required but
recommend
Edward O'Connor on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:37:20 -0700
We could address this problem by making changes along these lines:
1. Drop the meta name=generator alt= exception.
2. Mint a global boolean attribute that, when present, indicates that
the element and its descendants are outside of the
2012-07-25 15:05, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I think it would be better to keep the alt attribute always required but
recommend that conformance checkers have an option of switching off errors
related to this
The big question is whether that would be enough to solve the problem
of generators
Hi,
The spec currently disallows conformance checkers from reporting img
elements without alt= attributes as an error when meta
name=generator is present[1].
This is problematic for two reasons:
1. Many tools which insert meta name=generator have done so for years
simply as a means to mark
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote:
The spec currently disallows conformance checkers from reporting img
elements without alt= attributes as an error when meta
name=generator is present[1].
I've adjusted the text to make it clearer that validators can report the
error in this
2012-07-24 21:58, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote:
The spec currently disallows conformance checkers from reporting img
elements without alt= attributes as an error when meta
name=generator is present[1].
I've adjusted the text to make it clearer that
18 matches
Mail list logo
