- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:19:05 -0500
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- CC: 'Rob Sayre' <rsayre@mozilla.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> >> I don't think it (@alt) is resolved, but too I don't see a proposal. >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31 >> > > There have been numerous proposals, none of which seem palpable to Ian to > date, although my suggestion of April 2008 looked remarkably like Ian's > Option F of August 2008: > "The current wording in the editor's draft is Option F (a variation of > Foliot's proposal)." > http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute > http://html4all.org/pipermail/list_html4all.org/2008-April/000797.html > > There are a number of suggestions/proposals in that wiki that Ian > unilaterally dismissed without (IMHO) a full and open airing of the ideas. > Although since his current suggestion is indeed very similar to one that I > floated, I personally am on the fence for the most part. Cool. I'm pleased to see progress being made. Meanwhile, I'm tracking an action item for Matt May: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/98 Based on Thursday's input by Matt, my understanding is that this issue isn't yet resolved. Give that we are still a ways away from Last Call, as long as we are making progress, I'm OK with that. >> That's a bit more than I said. >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Feb/0091.html > > Sam, if I mis-read or spoke out of turn, then I apologize. This was my > interpretation of your statement: > "And in the case of alt, the right baby step might very well be to continue > to make it required unconditionally." And if my "might very well be" was viewed by some as "likely", I too apologize. My intent wasn't to take a position myself, but merely to acknowledge a possibility. > JF - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 02:19:45 UTC