Re: [html4all] On HTML WG process - was [Re: Request for review of alt and alt value for authoring or publishing tools]

> As an individual:
> I am not convinced of the merit of a reserved value for the alt
> attribute, nor am I convinced of the desirability of having alt
> required. Neither am I convinced of the worthlessness of these
> proposals.
> I am convinced that the spec needs to use a working definition of
> "text alternative" or "alternative text" that is in agreement with the
> WCAG guidelines and that the normative and informative statements
> provided in the spec must embody that agreement.
> I am not convinced that the decision about these issues should
> effectively be up to one person in the HTML WG, namely the editor.
> Therefore, if after all input from members of the HTML WG and relevant
> WAI working groups is considered, a consensus cannot be reached, then
> the legitmate and logical next step is for the issues to be brought to
> a vote.
> I don't think we are at that stage yet on these issues, and think that
> a better outcome would be that we can work as a group to acheive
> consensus.

As an individual I agree will all of the above.

As an individual, I do think that the HTML5 WG actually seeking advice
from PFWG, as well as the WAI offering advice on a regular on-going
basis would be most beneficial to process improvement.

For this use case AUWG and UAWG folks are the experts who could
provide real insight into possible solutions. We needed to ask them
for their advice. And we need to listen.

Best Regards,

Laura Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 12:05:39 UTC