[whatwg] alt="" and the <meta name=generator> exception

[Michael[tm] Smith]

Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch>, 2012-08-01 07:56 +0000:
> 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 think are good:
> 
>  - it's long, so people aren't going to want to type it out
>  - it's long, so it will stick out in copy-and-paste scenarios
>  - it's emminently searchable (long unique term) and so will likely lead 
>    to good documentation if it's adopted
>  - the "generator" part implies that it's for use by generators, and may 
>    discourage authors from using it
>  - the "unable" and "required" parts make it obvious that using this 
>    attribute is an act of last resort

Speaking as a validator contributor-implementor, I support the addition of
this attribute, with the "generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt" name or
at the very least with the characteristics of the name Hixie outlines here.

Moreover, I intend to implement experimental support for it in the
validator.nu engine relatively soon. Henri has also stated that he thinks a
related proposal from Ted O'Connor for a similar attribute but with a
different name ("relaxed") "would be eligible for implementation in
Validator.nu if the proposal were adopted by the HTML WG".

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0020.html

I suspect that Ted would be amenable to updating that proposal to use the
"generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt" instead of "relaxed", so I think
we have convergence on agreement for adding this attribute.

> This attribute would be non-conforming except when provided in markup 
> generated by user agents that find themselves with an image and no 
> suitable alt="" text. It would be a third option in the "Images whose 
> contents are not known" section of the spec. It would be mentioned in the 
> "Guidance for markup generators" section, along with some text about using 
> one of the other two alternatives when the image in question is the center 
> of attention on the page (as in the Flickr case), rather than using this 
> new attribute. It would replace the "generator" exception in the "Guidance 
> for conformance checkers" section. The note in the "generator" section 
> would be removed.

I support all those changes. I can't speak for Henri on all those points,
but note that Henri has also recently indicated he's agreeable to dropping
the "generator" section -

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0020.html
  "I agree that <meta name=generator> is a bad solution both because it
  tries to repurpose existing syntax in a way that's not expected by the
  current generators of the syntax and because of its lack of
  granularity."

> If we do this, I think we should commit to revisiting the issue in a year 
> or two, to examine what impact this is having on Web pages: is the 
> attribute used in inappropriate ways? Is it used badly more than 
> correctly? Are validator users more or less happy? Most importantly, are 
> alt="" texts overall better or worse? Have any generators started using 
> the attribute rather than outputting bogus alt="" values?

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 is experimental and may be dropped or changed significantly
within the next two years based on analysis we get back during that time.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike