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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:01:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4C7592CA.1010907@intertwingly.net>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 08/25/2010 05:15 PM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> 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?

Not to my knowledge.

> 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.

I'll remind you that we already have discussed at great length the idea 
of prominent issue markers with "neutral" text.  We even got to the 
point where a complete alternate draft was produced and was put up for a 
vote by the working group.  The decision was to *not* include the 
prominent issue markers.  One of the primary concerns was the selection 
criteria used to decide which issues to mark, and another was over the 
lack of consensus over the "neutral" content.  (And hence my use of 
"scare quotes" around the term "neutral").

An outcome of that process is that we actually did settle on a working 
definition of a neutral issue marker: a simple and prominent box which 
contains a link to the issue as well as the short description.

In fact, there already is such an issue marker:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1.html#alt

Furthermore, the process is automated.  What caused that link to be 
placed there is the existence of the text HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [alt] in 
the description of issue 31.

> 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]

I can certainly proceed with a call for proposals, but before I do, can 
I ask you to explain to me why the current issue markers are not 
sufficient for your needs, and why you think that asking this group 
again what seems (to me, at least) to be essentially the same question 
that was decided before has any hope of getting a different result?

> with regards
> Stevef

- Sam Ruby

> On 25 August 2010 20:56, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto: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 <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.wat-c.org
> <http://www.wat-c.org>
> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 22:02:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 August 2010 22:02:13 GMT