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 GMT

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