W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: ISSUE-116: Would a separate document work?

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:15:15 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7NtmHkMyTrgDs0ee6CJyKcBLpy_ZLLDEy6AOq@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
HI Sam,

Do any of the other documents you list contain normative content that
conflicts with normative content in the HTML5 spec? Or are being developed
as replacements for normative requirements in the HTML5 spec?

What is within the HTML5 specification is seen by people to be the
authoritative version of the HTML5 alt attribute authoring conformance
requirements, it has the benefit of incumbency, being resident in the HTML5
specification. Either this does make it the authoritative version HTML5 alt
attribute authoring conformance requirements or it does not, if it does not
then the existence of the alternative should be indicated in the context of
the alt section of the HTML5 spec.

So while the development of an "index of relevant documents" may be
worthwhile it does not provide a satisfactory resolution to (for me at
least) issue 116 [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/116]

with regards

On 25 August 2010 20:56, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 08/11/2010 08:53 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
>> we have 2 documents currently published by the working group that have
>> normative requirements on use of the alt attribute in HTML5
>> Neither is authoritative or has the consensus of the working group.
>> Until the situation is resolved it is in the best interests of all
>> readers of either document to be made aware of the existence of the
>> other document to ensure that nobody is under the assumption that
>> neither document authoritatively defines the conformance requirements
>> for use of alt in HTML5.
> A few questions.  Short version:
> Could this "index of relevant documents" be a separate document?
> Longer version:
> This is a probe to explore if there is a possibility of amicable consensus,
> obviating the need for proposals, counter proposals, surveys, etc.
> Putting aside for the moment the fact that neither is required to have
> consensus at this point, nor the fact that neither will advance very far
> without consensus, the question concerning Issue 116 is much more narrowly
> scoped.  It is talking about a simple link and neutral information.
> I'll note that this is not the only such document that the HTML WG is
> producing.  The current list can be found down the right hand side of the
> HTML WG page:
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff/
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> I also note that the term "HTML 5" is often an umbrella term that people
> use to encompass other things including WebApps, Device APIs and Policies,
> CSS, ECMAScript-262, and potentially many other things.
> So... the questions I would like to pose to the group is:
> (1) Would there be benefit to the development and publishing of an overview
> document for HTML5?
> (2) Is there somebody (or perhaps a group of people) willing to produce
> such a document?
> (3) Would the existence of such a document satisfy everybody's needs, i.e.,
> if it were to exist and get past FPWD could we then close ISSUE-166 by
> amicable resolution?
> - Sam Ruby

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 21:21:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 August 2010 21:21:17 GMT