- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:57:33 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, 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>
Steve Faulkner, Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:03:36 +0000:
> WCAG has techniques for specific technologies/formats. It does not
> have specific normative requirements for specific technologues.
> HTML5 currently has 2 sets of normative requirements for aspects of
> text alternatives that have little do with HTML other than the use of
> the alt as the container for the text alternative.
Perhaps this systemic critique could be described in a systematic way?
Like in a table? An attempt follows, except that I would have liked to
see examples for each 'thing' - such as *examples* of where HTML5
eventually threads the turf of WCAG:
spec: HTML4 HTML5 WCAG
features: yes yes no
techniques: no? yes yes
requirements: no yes yes
Perhaps it just a 'sunk cost' feeling - and as such a feeling that
should be ignored, but much energy went into what HTMl5 so far says
about @alt text. Including much energy - such as decision processes -
went into how to do conformance checking based on those rules. As said
before: We would need to sew together the relationship between HTML5
and 'these issues' anew, if we were to adopt this CP.
--
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 19:58:13 UTC