W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2010

RE: RESOLUTION to modify text alternative change proposal and reject WAI CG's consensus recommendation

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 02:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Janina Sajka'" <janina@rednote.net>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Michael\(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Michael Cooper'" <cooper@w3.org>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <026b01cad95b$8cab0530$a6010f90$@edu>
Laura Carlson wrote:
>
> > An ERROR without any real consequences is meaningless in the
> > real world.
>
> That's where we disagree. Real consequences exist.

What consequence exists? Lack of validation? What does that mean, what does 
that get us? If a browser continues to display an invalid image, then why 
worry about validation? Validation here (and throughout most of HTML5) has 
been rendered meaningless. I've argued the merits of validation before too: 
http://john.foliot.ca/are-we-still-arguing-about-validation/ and I disagree 
with that 'meaninglessness' position, but I cannot force browsers to my 
perspective, and I don't think we collectively can either. (And FWIW, even 
WCAG2 has dropped the requirement for 'validation')

When it comes to images, browsers don't care, and won't care*: if @src is 
legitimate, they will render the image on screen. So we're stuck with that 
fact. What other consequence will have any real impact on authors? I'm not 
trying to be combative here, but I *am* asking the hard question. What does 
insisting on ERROR get us?

[* I hate even having to type that, but I must acknowledge this truth]


>
> > That's not a deal breaker is it?
>
> This isn't about making deals.

Sure it is - that's the nature of compromise and consensus - give a little, 
get a little: find a place where everybody is, if not cozy, not 
uncomfortable either.


>
> I support adding a HTML5 mandate for all validators to point to WCAG.
> It would enhance  the teachable moment. If in fact it is in the realm
> of HTML5 to make this mandate. I have reported it as separate bug [1]
> so Ian can consider it and so that that it can be run through the HTML
> working group process.
>
> But bug 9485 is separate and in addition to the change proposal which
> implements WAI-CG's recommendation [2].

Laura, if I am to understand this correctly, the current sticking point is 
over ERROR versus WARNING, but I am still unclear on why struggling over a 
word is worth the effort? It's not going to change how browsers are going to 
behave.

I am not going to be obstructionist here - I will not challenge the 
consensus of this group, but I really think we need to ask what we are 
fighting for, a word or a result. I have previously expressed a preference 
for ERROR, but it's not a hill I'm willing to die for. I support the general 
intent of your Proposal, but don't think that fighting for one word is worth 
the effort, not within the Task Force, and certainly not within the larger 
Working Group.

JF
Received on Sunday, 11 April 2010 09:44:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:07 GMT