W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Discussion on Change Proposal for ISSUE-66

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:45:39 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001210945u57c1e6buf2d720536e22344c@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC