Re: Fwd: Alt-Techniques Formal Objection Rationale

>Saw this while I was chasing up details to talk to him about it. I propose
to let this run inside HTML-WG and see where they get to before we
intervene.

fine with me.

regards
Steve

On 19 November 2012 15:12, Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com> wrote:

> **
> Saw this while I was chasing up details to talk to him about it. I propose
> to let this run inside HTML-WG and see where they get to before we
> intervene.
>
> cheers
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:06:51 +0100, Steve Faulkner <
> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------- 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
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chaals - standards declaimer
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html