W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2010

[wbs] response to 'ISSUE-66 - Image Analysis Heuristics - Straw Poll for Objections'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of 1981km@gmail.com <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:25:01 +0000
To: 1981km@gmail.com,www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-92b01a1ded70348f4aad5ed60fba1005@cgi.w3.org>

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'ISSUE-66 - Image
Analysis Heuristics - Straw Poll for Objections' (HTML Working Group) for
Krzysztof Maczy&#324;ski.



---------------------------------
Objections to the Change Proposal to Strike Paragraph
----
We have a Change Proposal to remove the image heuristics paragraph from
the img element section. If you have strong objections to adopting this
Change Proposal, please state your objections below.

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.
Objections: 





---------------------------------
Objections to the Change Proposal to Keep The Paragraph As Is
----
We have a Change Proposal to keep the HTML5 specification as is. If you
have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your
objections below.

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.
Objections: 
see my Objections to the Change Proposal to Be More Explicit




---------------------------------
Objections to the Change Proposal to Be More Explicit
----
We have a Change Proposal to be more explicit about potential repair
techniques. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal,
please state your objections below.

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.
Objections: 
The paragraph and suggested longer replacement are disproved of by notable
accessibility experts and are widely believed to be far from consensus and
from providing best possible guidance for implementors and authors. Also
from this WG's angle it doesn't belong in HTML because of broader
applicability. The right document to whose WG the collected suggestions
should be passed for due treatment with expert attention (not excluding
ours, just moving responsibility), refinement and probable inclusion is
UAAG. In this way spec bloat (our big problem) will be avoided, concerns
decoupled, architectural consistency maintained and independent
evolvability assured. The same reasoning pretty much applies against the
Change Proposal to Keep The Paragraph As Is.


These answers were last modified on 19 May 2010 at 19:23:10 U.T.C.
by Krzysztof MaczyƄski

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-66-objection-poll/ until
2010-05-19.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 19:25:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:30 GMT