Am 19.06.2013 um 20:53 schrieb Ian Hickson: > [...] > > I've changed the spec to make <figure> applicable to your use case as > well, and added more text to explain various use cases and whether they > apply to <figure>. Let me know if the new text is still problematic for > your use case. I agree that it would be overly restrictive to limit > <figure> in the case you are presenting.
The new text (http://html5.org/r/7991) covers my use case very well. I have updated the markup generator to use figures with figcaption. >> (d) "The img element has a (non-conforming) >> generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt attribute whose value is the >> empty string."^[3] >> >> Well, that is an option for any use case a markup generator runs into. >> But it seems unattractive in all its verbosity to me. > > It's supposed to be a little unattractive, to discourage authors from > using it to silent validators complaining about their hand-written pages > (where they should just provide the fricking replacement text). > >> Unfortunately -- although its verbosity is there to prevent any >> misunderstanding for its use -- it might leave the impression that a >> generator writing >> >> <img src="..." generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt=""> >> >> is not as good as a generator writing >> >> <img src="..." alt="an image"> > > Indeed. I don't know of a way to fix that. It's always going to be the > case that a generator doing the wrong thing in a way that is > machine-readably indistinguishable from the right thing is more likely to > look correct at a quick glance than a generator that is doing the wrong > thing in a machine-detectable way. I don't know what we can do about that. > > I'm open to suggestions. I see. Unfortunately I do not have a better idea. I have updated the markup generator to use generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt for the rare cases when it does not have a caption either. > [...] > >> In my case it is not applicable anyway: The converter generates markup >> for instant display -- the output is not saved to be edited. > > Doesn't mean that it's not still bad that it's inaccessible, of course. :-) Yep, a missing alt attribute is a missing alt attribute. Thanks a lot Martin
