On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Hazem Saleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hi Team,
Simon and me made a discussion about making the (t:graphicImage)
component XHTML complaint.
Here is the thread discussion :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1143
We need to take your opinion about that,
Have we have to make the components XHTML complaint or leave this
to the user's usage with warnings ?
Hazem Saleh schrieb:
Sorry the thread discussion is here :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-1291
Manfred commented on the jira issue:
[I moved this to the email thread, so we don't have half the discussion here
and half on the issue]
+1 for a strict (but sweet-tempered) behaviour
that means:
- log a nag warning
- render a non-empty alt attribute with a "meaningful" default text if the
developer
omits the attribute (or provides an empty one)
The thing is that for h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have **no idea** what a
"meaningful" text would be. This is some arbitrary image that the user has
chosen. For what purpose? We don't know - unless we embed AI software and do image
recognition on the referenced file. So for h:graphicImage and t:graphicImage we have
**only** these choices:
(a) don't output ALT. This screws all blind users, but in an obvious way so
that QA departments can easily detect it and tell their developers to add the
needed alt attributes. And it is not our code that is at fault.
(b) output empty ALT. This screws all blind users, but it cannot be detected by
validation. And it is our code that is at fault as well as the user code.
(c) output ALT with "ha ha no description". See (b).
For cases where myfaces components are generating the image references for
their own purposes, they *know* what that purpose is. Always. So they are
always capable of attaching a valid ALT description.
Regards,
Simon
