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

Re: Integration of HTM

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:35:30 +0100
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u7ljlgkc64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:49:56 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> We are calling it the accessible DOM for canvas. It starts and ends with
>> the <accessible></accessible> tags and it is not visually rendered.
> I really don't think this is a good idea, as explained in the following
> e-mails:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0488.html
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1151.html
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0931.html
> I do not think it is necessary to have multiple inline alternatives for
> <canvas>, nor do I think it is necessary for widgets that represent the
> graphically-rendered widgets on a <canvas> to be marked up separately  
> from an inline alternative representation. The existing features of HTML
> already allow us to have multiple alternatives. Adding more features for
> this is IMHO a mistake.

I wholeheartedly agree. Making accessibility into something that only  
consultants can do correctly would be a huge step backwards.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 09:36:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC