- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:29:09 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Steven Faulkner wrote: > > So your position is that WCAG 1.0 got it wrong and WCAG 2.0 have got it > wrong on what is an appropriate text alternative in the situation > described. > > What you need to do is provide good reasons why Ian's view is superior > to that of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 on the subject of text alternatives. > Which to date you have not. I don't think WCAG got it wrong, I just think WCAG simply doesn't cover this case. I'm sure there are cases that HTML5 doesn't cover either. It's hard to cover all examples. Removing the exampels from HTML5 just because another spec doesn't have similar examples, however, makes no sense. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 13 April 2008 18:29:43 UTC