Re: "image analysis heuristics" (ISSUE-66)

hi Ian,

>It's not clear to me what advantage there would be to just
>having lots of quotes.

I didn't say a lot of quotes, I suggested in this case.

>You skipped over a question I asked in the previous e-mail:

As stated previously I would like to see a link to the relevant UAAG
section. As against a reinterpretation of the requirements in your style.

with regards
Stevef

On 7 February 2010 17:40, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > >
> > >As far as I am aware, the only links from the WHATWG complete.html spec
> > >to other specs are links to specs that are required to be implemented
> > >because they form the substrate on which HTML and its APIs are built,
> > >such that the implementors _cannot_ skip them even if they are tempted
> > >to.
> >
> > I was referring to the W3C HTML5 specification, what i did not say was
> > there were thousands of links to other specs, but "thousands of links"
> > that being the very nature of the web, interlinked documents that is,
> > not one hermetically sealed docment that contains all knowledge.
>
> I'm not sure what that sentence means.
>
> The HTMLWG HTML5 spec is indeed less than ideal, at least compared to the
> complete.html spec, but that is entirely due to decisions out of my
> control, such as splitting out Web Sockets, Web Workers, Web Storage,
> Server-Sent Events, XHR, querySelector, Microdata, postMessage, and the 2D
> Context. Modulo those differences, however, the text is the same. I've
> tried to minimise the number of cases where those specs depend on each
> other, but there is a limit to how much I can avoid that.
>
>
> > >but on average they are more likely to do the right thing when they
> > >find the information right there in the prose they are having to read
> > >anyway, than if it is "conveniently out of sight".
> >
> > do you have any data to back this up?
>
> Only circumstancial or anecdotal evidence. For example, see Boris' e-mail
> on this same thread.
>
>
> > If you are concerned about people not reading the referenced text, why
> > not quote the relevant bit inline?
>
> If I'm putting text in the spec, I might as well make it fit the spec's
> style and generally be consistent with the spec, there's no need to just
> quote it. It's not clear to me what advantage there would be to just
> having lots of quotes.
>
>
> You skipped over a question I asked in the previous e-mail: If there is
> advice in the UAAG spec that you think implementors should follow here,
> then the best way we can ensure that it is followed is, IMHO, to also
> include it in HTML. Is there something I've omitted that UAAG recommends
> of relevance here? If so, what?
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>



-- 
with regards

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

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html