- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:19:18 -0500
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On 02/22/2012 08:07 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > Hi Janina, > > Sam quoted Steve's Change Proposal: > >> "The WCAG WG is more suited to development and vetting of the >> requirements and guidance of alternative text at this level, while >> the product of that development and vetting process can be equally >> available to developers using any specification." > > Then Sam wrote: > >>> This fourth point starts out by restating portions of the third >>> point. It then concludes by making a point that is uncontested: >>> nobody is proposing that the WCAG WG stop producing WCAG documents. > > So maybe consider restating that to: > > "The HTML WG is unsuited to development and vetting of the > requirements and guidance of alternative text at this level," and then > state why. > > Sam, what type of rationale would be considered new information on this point? > > This might be the elephant in the room that everyone is dancing around. Without debating the merit of that point, I will state that that's an entirely different point. Unless you also make the case that having information relevant to authors that make use of elements such as <img> and attributes such as alt="" in the same place as the definition of those elements is counter productive, the result would lead to an entirely different conclusion than the proposal made by movealt proposal. > Best Regards, > Laura - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 14:19:52 UTC