Re: why are we pursuing this idea? (was: Implementation Details request on Issue 204 Decision)

hi ben,

>Would you call that "promoting"?

as Maciej has clarified what is meant, I would say yes.


regards
SteveF

On 21 August 2012 18:56, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Steve Faulkner
>> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Why do you think it's better for user agents not to expose such
>>> content when such education efforts fail, as they normally do?"
>>>
>>> I am not suggesting forbidding user agents from exposing anything, I
>>> am suggesting promoting it as a useful method to expose rich content
>>> is not a productive or worthwhile idea and in general we should be not
>>> advocating it.
>>
>> The adopted spec text says authors SHOULD NOT use this technique for
>> rich content, but user agents MAY expose it when they do. Would you
>> call that "promoting"?
>
> It actually says that authors SHOULD NOT use this technique for rich content if essential meaning would be lost by flattening. In other words, authors can use rich markup for progressive enhancement, to potentially give a better experience if browsers come to support it. But authors can't rely on it being there; they have to make descriptions that are usable even if flattened to plain text.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 21:35:26 UTC