Re: Comment on Sprites for MWABP ( LC-2408)

I agree with the decision of the group.

Francois.

On 09/07/2010 04:21 PM, fd@w3.org wrote:
>   Dear Francois Daoust ,
>
> The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
> sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Mobile Web Application
> Best Practices published on 13 Jul 2010. Thank you for having taken the
> time to review the document and to send us comments!
>
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
> been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/latest.
>
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-bpwg-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 14 September
> 2010 (if possible, simply tell us if you need more time). In case of
> disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a
> path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be
> achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection
> which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this
> document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.
>
> Thanks,
>
> For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
> Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
> François Daoust
> W3C Staff Contacts
>
>   1. http://www.w3.org/mid/4C4422FC.90600@w3.org
>   2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mwabp-20100713/
>
>
> =====
>
> Your comment on 3.4.6 Aggregate Static Images into a Single Composite
> Resource (Sprites):
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a small comment on section 3.4.6 Aggregate Static Images into a
>> Single Composite Resource (Sprites) of the second last call working
>> draft of Mobile Web Application Best Practices:
>>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mwabp-20100713/#bp-conserve-sprites
>>
>> The best practice does not explicitly restrict its usage to
>> "decorative" images. It does so implicitly through the use of examples
>> "icons, buttons".
>>
>> When applied to informative images that appear as<img>  tags within the
>> markup, this best practice would result in a mix between content and
>> layout, since CSS then becomes mandatory to render the correct portion
>> of the image and thus to carry the information.
>>
>> I suggest to clarify the current text in the "What it means"
>> subsection:
>> "Web applications often depend on a number of *decorative* images to
>> provide icons, buttons, etc."
>> ... instead of:
>> "Web applications often depend on a number of static images to provide
>> icons, buttons, etc."
>>
>> I also suggest to start the "How to do it" subsection by:
>> "Define candidate images as CSS background images and combine them into
>> a single image for transfer (spriting)"
>> ... instead of:
>> "Combine images into a single image for transfer (spriting)"
>>
>> This has been discussed back in May 2009 from an accessibility angle,
>> which essentially boils down to the same thing, but although there
>> seemed to be agreement that restrictions to decorative images for this
>> technique was a good thing, it doesn't seem to have been integrated in
>> to the document:
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0039.html
>> ... started from Jo's question and Alan's response:
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009May/0034.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Francois.
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2408):
> The group partially agrees with the comment and decided to add a reminder
> that informational image require alternative text (whereas decorative
> images don't).
>
> ----
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 14:22:34 UTC