- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:23:51 +0000
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> you wrote:
> "The CP claims normative requirements will be created by updating the
> Techniques, but the Techniques are not normative, so the CP does not
> make sense."
>
> can you provide details of where it says this in the CP?
It says:
"The majority of normative authoring requirements for alternative text
currently contained within the HTML5 specification are not
HTML5-specific, but are also useful and relevant for authoring content
in other specifications besides HTML5. They should therefore not be
prescribed within HTML5."
"Much of the normative requirements for alternative text currently in
"HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives" are
relevant for authoring content in other specifications."
"Requirements and guidance needs to be assigned to normative or
informative levels, according to extensive experience regarding which
guidance is more fundamental and/or more well-tested, and which is
more advisory or even experimental."
Not sure what the TF thought they were voting for, but this implies to
me there may be new normative requirements.
This would be consistent with attempts by TF members to introduce new
normative requirements, for example introducing a 50 word limit to
<figcaption> elements providing text alternatives for <img> elements:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13651
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 09:24:40 UTC