W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [html4all] HTML5 Alternative Text, and Authoring Tools

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:39:45 +0200
To: "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: "'HTML Working Group'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ua20wjnk64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:57:48 +0200, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca> wrote:
> Given the acrimonious tone of most of the discussions regarding
> accessibility and HTML5 almost since the inception of  
> public-html@w3c.org,
> it *is* fair to say that one side of the table is less than receptive to  
> the advice of the other side of the table, demanding evidence and proof  
> of
> claims while at the same time failing to deliver the same from their  
> side.

Both "sides" aren't really receptive. The "WHATWG side" was quite hostile  
at the start of the HTML WG to people who wanted to see this done  
otherwise (I hope you feel it has somewhat improved) and the "html4all  
side" recently ignored a proposal from Ian that involved making the alt=""  
attribute mandatory.


> When the defacto W3C group encharged with "accessibility" makes an  
> official response, only to have it wholesale dismissed by the editor, it  
> is not hard to see how reaching the conclusion that Matt has reached  
> would be a hard
> stretch.

So because there's disagreement over alt="" (and presumably a few other  
attributes from HTML4) HTML5 overall doesn't take accessibility into  
account? That doesn't seem like a fair assessment of the situation.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 07:51:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:17 GMT