- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:16:35 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Leif Halvard Silli writes: > Janina Sajka, Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:41:18 -0500: > > Leif Halvard Silli writes: > >> Btw, I agree that two HTML5 specs should not contradict each others. > >> But I do think HTML5 'proper' should contain basic advice and rules. > > > > Are you asserting that alternative text applies only to HTML? > > Why do you ask, when the CP *does* suggest to have have a HTML5 > specific guide - in the form of Steve's alt techniques spec? Changing Correction, please. This CP does not propose what you say. Please reread. We say something very different, and we give reasons. One important part of the reason is exactly on the point of whether alternative text is just about HTML. So, I ask you again, are you asserting it's just for HTML? Please understand I cannot have a conversation with you about this if you are unable to understand what I have already said to you via our CP. You have not yet demonstrated that you grok it. Janina Janina :$-12 > his spec to be a co-deliverable of the HTML WG and the WAI WG, does not > change that it is a HTML5 specific text. That you also, at the same > time, want to make it less normative, also do no change that it is > HTMl5 specific. > > If this CP was accepted, then how could there be any @alt text > validation in the HTML5 validator? Would that kind of validation not > need an extra step - e.g. a separate A11Y validation? The CP is > critical about HTML5's options for not including the @alt attribute. > But how does the fact that the CP suggests to 'Remove normative aspects > of the techniques document', make a difference to that problem? > > I think it would be great if the @alt text rules could be simplified. > And in that regard, it has been claimed it is better to have short and > clear advice rather than longwinded and intricate advice - which can be > important too, but short and clear rules are also needed. > > With regard to WCAG 2.0, then I don't have a problem with it, but have > a problem with its normativeness: The general rules are normative, > while the concrete techniques are only non-normative advice — one often > gets to hear that it is just the opinion of those who contributed to > the technique. It is confusing. > > The good thing with a normative spec is that what it is says tried out > and wetted more thoroughly than non-normative specs. At least, that is > my perception of the effect of being normative. > > I am not complete and forever opposed to having it in a separate spec > and to make that spec less normative. But I see the above mentioned > issues with the proposed direction. > -- > Leif Halvard Silli -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org Linux Foundation http://a11y.org Chair, Protocols & Formats Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 21:17:06 UTC