Re: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

On 2/20/09 6:30 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
>
> Le 20 févr. 2009 à 18:09, Rob Sayre a écrit :
>> The text above demonstrates a belief that the spec can force people 
>> to do things. I don't think it can.
>
> The spec can't force people to do things. It encourage people to do 
> things. Often more likely, validators encourage people to do things. 
> They even develop more confidence into the validators than the spec. 
> :) [this from years of participating to W3C validators community]

I do agree that validators can encourage people to do things, or alert 
them to problems they weren't previously aware of. I'm curious how a 
validator would deal with the requirements in Ian's draft for the alt 
attribute. I also know of a very successful validator that manages to 
inform users of problems not quite covered by spec requirements. Here's 
an example:

<http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/NotInline.html>

So, while I agree that specs beget validators, I disagree that 
validators need RFC2119 imperatives to do their job in this case.

>> I want the spec to accurately reflect reality,
>
> "Not working well at this point in the message…" I think I understand 
> your goal, but "reality" and "real world" should be banned from all 
> discussions we have about technologies. These expressions are a smoke 
> screen to the actual issues

There are certainly W3C Working Groups that appear to have banned those 
terms. I don't think it is a good idea.

<http://code.google.com/webstats/>

Is a good survey. Looks like there are a lot of alt attributes out 
there. I wonder how many are empty, and how many are valid according to 
the requirements in Hixie's draft (difficult to measure!)

- Rob