- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:03:17 +0100
- To: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- CC: Eric Eggert <w3c@yatil.de>, Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>, "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
David Poehlman wrote: > I don't think a spec should require accessibility but neither should it > stiffle it's possibility. So, as long as @alt is available, the possibility is there. Mandating @alt would not necessarily and automatically result in increased accessibility - in the same way that, even today, sites that perfectly validate to XHTML 1.0 or whatever are not necessarily accessible, or the same way that Word documents that perfectly pass spellchecking don't necessarily make any sense. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 23:04:26 UTC