W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2008

Re: How will the response from the pfwg on alt be dealt with?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:07:55 -0600
Message-ID: <47B5C6EB.1010808@w3.org>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>

Steven Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> I guess some of us a wondering whether what is an unambiguous formal 
> response from the PF WG in regards to the current HTML5 spec being out 
> of step with WAI, WCAG 1 & 2 and the PF WG thinking on the alt. i.e. the 
> alt should be required not optional, is going to be dealt with.

Yes, I expect it will.

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability.
I can't imagine what more you want.

As I said, this looks like a design issue; there is somewhere
around 2 years of back-log on those in front of the PFWG request.

I expect the WG to get to it in due course.

I was just on a call with Al Gilman and he didn't bring this up;
I infer that he's satisfied with the rate of progress.

If the pace isn't satisfactory to you, you're welcome to
  (a) come to a teleconference and argue for higher priority
  (b) ask Al Gilman to follow up




-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 17:08:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:13 GMT