- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:26:00 -0400
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:15:53 -0400 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Your position seems to be that there should not be a heartbeat until > there is technical consensus on how this document should change based on > an expected Director's decision. No. Not at all. If I gave that impression I apologize. > My position is that technical consensus is not required to publish a > heartbeat, and that a note of the known issues remaining to be worked is > sufficient. I'm OK with that too, with the proviso that there be a note right next to the few examples in question that are most likely to change (i.e. after the anchor so taht people linking directly to them will see it). I was originally asked to publish the document without adding any such notes, and without adding any notes about open issues, and I felt that was inappropriate when I looked at the document. I'd _prefer_ to resolve those examples before issuing a heartbeat, since I don't see it as technically very difficult. Adding a note about the fact that Web browsers may truncate an alt atribute value when rendered, to fit it into space reserved into an image, and removing a reference to "Details", would be icing on the beer. But that's a "prefer". My objection was, always was, still is, to publishing anything new on /TR in this area that doesn't clearly reference longdesc, and that thereby risks undermining the overall picture. This doesn't reflect badly on the current state of the draft, but rather that the world changed around it. Clearer? :) Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 21:26:04 UTC