"Image filename is accessible name for image" (9eb3f6) keep it or ditch it?

[Jym77]

This rule has been review for W3C publication:
w3c/wcag-act#447

A lot of comments are about not understanding why this rule is here, going as far as to suggest to completely change it, for example:

I'm not clear this rule is necessary. Wouldn't a rule for "Image has an accessible name that describes its purpose" broadly cover what's tested here?
A filename with extension for accessible name would pass only when the image is used to represent the file and not the image displayed. Perhaps the rule should be "File extensions are included in accessible name for files available for download."

I think some work needs to be done to scope the rule's applicability and when a use of a filename is appropriate and when it usually isn't.

and I did encounter similar incomprehension about this rule with colleagues and customers.

---

As far as I can tell, this rule is meant as an heuristic for "image accessible name is descriptive" (not written yet). Rather than flagging every single image, this rule can select a reasonably small subset to check and can thus be implemented in a semi-automated way.

Part of the comments in the review seem to believe that the rule should rather determine whether or not it is correct to use a filename (by which they seem to understand "a name with file extension").

---

I'm not sure what to do about it. I don,t want to spend too much time updating the rule if the thing to do is change it completely… And this is definitely not a decision I want to take alone…

1. We keep the rule as it is, making minor improvements to make the purpose more explicit (and of course answering other comments)
2. We ditch the rule as it is, and possibly replace it by something else, following the strongest comments on the publication review.

[Jym77]

After discussion with @WilcoFiers, we decided to keep it. Closing this.