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

Re: ISSUE-122 (shalott-example) - Expanded scope and Call for Counter-Proposals

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:51:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010272148000.7799@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
> If we find that we have WG consensus on the statement mentioned in the 
> top only Change Proposal that we have to date, namely "Do not make it 
> non-conforming in HTML5 for authors to provide text alternatives for 
> images considered to enhance the themes or subject matter of the page 
> content", then we would expect every WG document to be updated to match 
> that consensus.

Well it depends on whether the image in question is purely decorative or 
whether it has corresponding textual content; in the latter case, it would 
fall under the category of "a phrase or paragraph with an alternative 
graphical representation: charts, diagrams, graphs, maps, illustrations" 
in the HTML spec and would in fact be required to have alternative text.

> The original bugs were 9077 and 9081.

Neither of these are asking for a normative change, so it seems like you 
are violating your own process by taking an issue escalated from those 
bugs and turning them into issues of a normative nature. It also seems 
like a waste of everyone's time since the suggestion in question is 
apparently uncontroversial and could be resolved via the normal bug 
resolution process if it indeed requires any changes at all.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 21:52:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:51 UTC