W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:12:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEhSh3e44xv8eLMAHCyMfmE=JeL8LOSb12ciOSJFbpu7neU=YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> none of the statements you have cited , from my reading, imply that
> new normative requirements are to be minted

Me: "there *may* be new normative requirements" (my emphasis).

You: "new normatives requirements *are* to be minted" (my emphasis).

But anyway, the CP says "The majority of normative authoring
requirements for alternative text currently contained within the HTML5
specification are not HTML5-specific, but are also useful and relevant
for authoring content in other specifications besides HTML5" and then
seems to argue we should delete them from the HTML5 spec. Maybe it
means that these are useful guidance but bad normative requirements,
and so shouldn't be required for conformance anywhere. Maybe it means
these are good normative requirements but already normative in WCAG2
and don't need to be required for HTML5 conformance. Mysteries abound.

> and if they were it would
> require an update to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
> recomendation.

I guess you mean a new version of WCAG, since as a published
specification WCAG 2.0 is subject to errata not the addition of new
normative requirements.

> Any suggestions you have on how to modify the CP text
> to make that clearer would be appreciated.

People in this thread keep asking me to provide clearer text for a
proposal I don't understand, making arguments about which I've
expressed repeated scepticism [1] [2], and that does not seem to
specify the changes its proponents seem to want and even seems to
argue against them [3]. It would be healthier if the WG just required
CPs to include textual patches, as this would save a lot of discussion
about intentions [4].

Given that the general idea of the CP is to migrate responsibility for
writing technical specifications from one group of people to another
group of people to avoid confusion among readers of specs and users of
conformance checkers, the failure of this particular CP to detail its
changes unambiguously in a way that leaves specifications in a
consistent state is a depressing example of a medium undermining its
own message.

I will wait and see if the proposal is clarified so that I can least
tell what textual changes would be made to documents that are HTML WG
deliverables.

If not, I'll guess I'll need to ask the Chairs what textual changes
they would require to HTML WG deliverables if they accepted the
proposal and decide how to proceed on the basis of their
interpretation.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jul/0098.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0101.html

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0342.html

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0727.html

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 13:13:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:46 GMT