- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:45:39 -0800
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> I don't understand why we would *forbid* UAs from improving image >> accessibility by whatever means they can. >> >> However I do agree with the change proposal in that I would be fine >> with removing the current text. However I would suggest replacing it >> with a general statement that UAs are allowed to improve accessibility >> in any way it can. Even if that goes against the letter of the spec. >> >> This is similar to how I think the spec should say that UAs should be >> allowed to deviate from the spec for security reasons if the UA so >> desires. >> > > That's a dangerous precedent to take. > > If a UA sees the potential for security risks in any of the specs, it > should be working, now, to ensure the component leading to the risk is > removed, or altered. And we do. But many times security issues aren't discovered until a spec is in a spec where making quick modifications are possible. > Removing the sentence doesn't say UAs aren't allowed to improve > accessibility -- it's just removing what amounts to an > overspecification. Oh? What language in the spec allows this? I interpreted the MUSTs in the specs as MUSTs under all conditions except when explicitly stated otherwise. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 17:46:33 UTC