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

Null change proposals for ISSUE-31, ISSUE-41, ISSUE-80, and ISSUE-88

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 05:33:00 +0000 (UTC)
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003240508100.4055@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>

ISSUE-31
========

SUMMARY
There is no problem and the proposed remedy is to change nothing.

RATIONALE
There is no problem.

Another change proposal suggests removing all advice for authors writing 
alternative text, moving it to other documents. Historically, we have 
tried that (HTML4 had virtually no advice) and we have found it to be a 
poor solution: authors assume it is easy to write alternative text and 
thus do not attempt to learn anything about it. We need to try having such 
information as "in your face" as possible. Having additional documents 
would be additionally helpful, but does not preclude having detailed 
advice in the HTML spec itself.

A second change proposal suggests allowing otherwise non-conforming 
content to be conforming based on the presence of ARIA attributes. 
However, this is a layering violation and a language design error. ARIA is 
intended to only affect accessibility API mappings (and thus ATs). 
Features such as alt="", however, are relevant far beyond AT users, for 
example to text browsers. It would be wrong, therefore, to make solutions 
that exclusively affect accessibility APIs be a suitable alternative for 
solutions that are necessary for UAs that do not use accessibility APIs.

DETAILS
Change nothing.

IMPACT

POSITIVE EFFECTS
Having authoring advice will help advise authors.
Having conformance requirements independent of AT APIs will ensure that 
authors are encouraged to write documents that are optimal even for users 
that do not use ATs.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS
None.

CONFORMANCE CLASS CHANGES
None.

RISKS
None.


ISSUE-41
========

SUMMARY
There is no problem and the proposed remedy is to change nothing.

RATIONALE
"Decentralized extensibility" is not a problem description.

The issue description says that "The HTML5 specification does not have a 
mechanism to allow decentralized parties to create their own languages, 
typically XML languages, and exchange them in HTML5 text/html 
serializations", but to all appearances this is a good thing, not a 
problem. Why would we want to encourage vendors to create proprietary 
languages and exchange them as text/html? The whole point of having a 
standard is that people shouldn't do that.

Another change proposal suggests a convention should be provided for 
preventing vendor-specific non-standard extensions from clashing with 
themselves and future standard development. This is a real problem, but it 
is inappropriate to address this problem via the change proposal process 
since it corresponds to an open bug and does not have any bearing on the 
topic given by the issue description (as quoted above): such non-standard 
extensions would by definition not be "allowed"; they would merely be 
handled by the provision of a convention for experimentation in non- 
validating documents (as, for instance, with CSS vendor prefixes).

DETAILS
Change nothing.

IMPACT

POSITIVE EFFECTS
By not providing solutions without corresponding problems, we avoid the 
danger of designing solutions that do not address any real problems. We 
also avoid encouraging people to use these solutions to address problems 
that either should not be addressed at all, or to address problems that 
should be addressed in other ways that are far more appropriate.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS
None.

CONFORMANCE CLASS CHANGES
None.

RISKS
None. We can always add further extension mechanisms later if an actual 
problem is found to exist after all.


ISSUE-80
========

SUMMARY
There is no problem and the proposed remedy is to change nothing.

RATIONALE
There is no problem.

Another change proposal suggests disallowing the use of the title="" 
attribute to provide titles for images, instead requiring the use of 
separate elements for this purpose. This makes writing accessible pages 
harder and therefore is likely to have negative effects on the overall 
accessibility of the Web.

DETAILS
Change nothing.

IMPACT

POSITIVE EFFECTS
None.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS
None.

CONFORMANCE CLASS CHANGES
None.

RISKS
None.


ISSUE-88
========

SUMMARY
There is no problem and the proposed remedy is to change nothing.

RATIONALE
There is no problem.

Another change proposal suggests a number of changes, but those changes 
have by and large already been made and therefore it is hard to provide 
coherent counter-arguments to the remaining differences: it isn't clear 
which are merely editorial choices and which are intended to be actual 
proposed changes.

DETAILS
Change nothing.

IMPACT

POSITIVE EFFECTS
None.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS
None.

CONFORMANCE CLASS CHANGES
None.

RISKS
It is possible that some of the changes in the other change proposal would 
be worth making, but it is hard to tell which changes that would be since 
that proposal is out of date.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 05:33:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:15 UTC