W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > November 2012

Fwd: Alt-Techniques Formal Objection Rationale

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:06:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vm6qA0YmXeshMm=iiv7baZ-G9JPQsq2Dv63xSPf+LJuhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: 19 November 2012 15:00
Subject: Re: Alt-Techniques Formal Objection Rationale
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Hi Lachlan!

On 19/11/2012 13:19 , Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> This email covers both of my objections to the alt-techniques spec,
> regarding publishing on the Rec track and contradicting HTML5. This
> outlines a few areas of contention and compares equivalent sections of
> both the alt-techniques and HTML5 drafts.

Having read through your list of issues, and taking into account the fact
that you don't necessarily have the time to list all issues that you may
find, am I nevertheless understanding correctly that your objection is to
the conflict between HTML5 and AltTech, and not about the content of
AltTech itself?

So if we either removed the guidance in HTML5 (pointing to AltTech instead)
or folded AltTech into HTML5, can we assume that your objection would be
addressed? (Of course where the content differs you may orthogonally still
prefer one content over the other.)

Additionally, I am unclear about one part of your objection as initially
stated[0]. You indicate that since the content in AltTech is guidelines,
then it shouldn't be phrased normatively. It's unclear to me whether you
object to AltTech having normative content because only HTML5 should be
normative here, or because you feel nothing on this specific topic (or only
parts of it) should ever be normative. (For instance, it could be suggested
that only the requirements that can be machine-validated within reasonable
assumptions about today's technology should be normative, whereas
guidelines that can only be appreciated by sentient entities ought to
remain as informative guidelines.) Can you please clarify?

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-archive/2011May/**0051.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011May/0051.html>

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 19 November 2012 15:08:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:32 UTC