Re: ISSUE-31 Change Proposal

Hi Maciej,

>> This has been updated. Please re-add the Change Proposal
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
>> to the Change Proposal Status Table for HTML ISSUE-31, I believe
>> Maciej had previously removed it [1].
>
> I have recorded this on the issue status page:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-031

Thank you.

> It seems that you have 5 Change Proposals submitted for this issue:

Yes. The text alternative Change Proposals that I have drafted are:

1. Correct and Improve <img> Conformance Checker Guidance
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
This one incorporates WAI CG's advice. And is a HTML Accessibility
Task Force Recommendation. The proposal:
* Disallows <img> to be valid with the generator mechanism, email
exception, and title attribute.
* Allows <img> to be valid with aria-labelledby or the role attribute
with a value of "presentation".
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5

2. Require alt. Correct Definition to Provide Equality. Replace
Guidance for Conformance Checkers. The proposal:
* Replaces the definition of the img element with language that makes
alt and src attributes equivalent.
* Has guidance for conformance checkers guidance to flag ant image
that lacks an alt attribute as an error.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504
This is the one where I have atempted to address Vlad Alexander concerns.
http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/correct-img-element-definition/
He has no faith W3C HTML WG or WHATWG, so I submitted this proposal on
his behalf.
http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/correct-img-element-definition/#c20100219084034

3. Require alt HTML4. Replace img Definition and Guidance for
Conformance Checkers.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510
In this one I tried to address Jonas and T.V Raman's concerns.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0186.html

4. Correct and Improve <img> Conformance Checker Guidance. I drafted
this proposal at the chairs request [1], because the accessibility
task force did not provide rationale for or role="presentation" in
their proposal (but now it does, thanks to Steve). This proposal:
*Disallows <img> to be valid with the generator mechanism, email
exception, and title attribute.
*Allows <img> to be valid with aria-labelledby.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706

5. Correct <img> Conformance Checker Guidance. I drafted this proposal
at the Chairs request [1] because the accessibility task force did not
have rationale for aria-labelledby or role="presentation" in their
proposal (but now it does, thanks to Steve). This proposal disallows
<img> to be valid with the generator mechanism, email exception, and
title attribute.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707

> Are you still interested in pursuing all 5 of these, or should any of them
> be dropped?

I can live with any of the proposals that I drafted. They all have
commonalities to disallow <img> to be valid with the generator
mechanism, email exception, and title attribute.  They all make text
alternatives required resulting in the image element being complete in
the schema. They all declare the resulting structure invalid, if one
of the listed options is not determined.

Advice from members of the accessibility task force and Vlad Alexander
would be valuable regarding proposals based on their input.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504

Jonas and TV were interested in "Require alt Ala HTML4":
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510
We are waiting to hear from Ian on his answer to Jonas' question.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0099.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jul/0179.html
If Ian implements Jonas' idea, it might be a win-win solution, I don’t know.

At this point, we have multiple options. I am open to suggestions on
how to resolve this amiably. The resulting decision might not be
everyone's ideal decision. But it might be one where people could live
with it and we can all move forward together.

Best Regards,
Laura
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0022.html
-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 09:18:03 UTC