W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: ISSUE-31 and ISSUE-80 - Straw Poll A for Objections

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:19:11 +0200
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110331001911737996.8f54c2ea@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Maciej Stachowiak, Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:32:27 -0700:
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Paul Cotton, Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:03:54 +0000:
>>> ISSUE-31 and ISSUE-80 - Straw Poll A for Objections

>> This must be the most confusing poll ever. And the presentation of the 
>> options is questionable:
>> 
>> None of the options unpermit @title in any case. (It would be logical 
>> if they did for the role=presentation case, but none of them discuss 
>> this, it seems.) But despite that fact, you make it seem - in this 
>> letter and in the poll - as if in particular Req Set 5/6 unpermits 
>> @title unless there is a non-empty @alt. 
>> 
>> It is the opposite way: in Req Set 5/6, then @title triggers a need for 
>> a non-empty @alt. What the poll is really about is which - if any - 
>> conditions that take away the need for an @alt attribute. As the 
>> summary page states:
> 
> You are correct that the question wording is off. 

I'm glad to hear we agree on this.

> I updated the poll 
> wording. This is now the wording for the title attribute:
> 
>>>> We have a set of Change Proposals identified in the summary 
>>>> description that allow and disallow various exceptions to the 
>>>> general requirement to specify an alt attribute on all img 
>>>> elements.

The above sounds as an improvement.

>>>> If you have strong objections to permitting or not 
>>>> permitting a missing alt attribute in when the title attribute is 
>>>> specified, then please state your objections below.

Very good.

>>>> Title attributed is allowed as an exception by: Requirement Set 1.
>>>> 
>>>> Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely 
>>>> cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already 
>>>> been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not 
>>>> necessary to repeat it.
> 
> Does this address your concerns?

This is OK. 

Will you explain/Have you explained @aria-labelledby in the same way? 
Namely: do we accept that relaxed restriction on the use of @alt when 
@aria-labelledby is used? And ditto for role=presentation, except that 
here the opposite is the question: do we accept the @alt to be 
non-empty when role=presentation is set?

> Note: the chairs are hesitant to reorganize the poll questions 
> completely, unless there are WG members who truly feel they cannot 
> sensibly respond to the current poll.

See above. But else, I will try a good-will reading.
-- 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 22:19:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC