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

Re: Discussion on Change Proposal for ISSUE-66

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:08:54 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001211008tc34f12cra747b3d43f1331eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> I don't understand why we would *forbid* UAs from improving image
>>> accessibility by whatever means they can.
>>> However I do agree with the change proposal in that I would be fine
>>> with removing the current text. However I would suggest replacing it
>>> with a general statement that UAs are allowed to improve accessibility
>>> in any way it can. Even if that goes against the letter of the spec.
>>> This is similar to how I think the spec should say that UAs should be
>>> allowed to deviate from the spec for security reasons if the UA so
>>> desires.
>> That's a dangerous precedent to take.
>> If a UA sees the potential for security risks in any of the specs, it
>> should be working, now, to ensure the component leading to the risk is
>> removed, or altered.
> And we do. But many times security issues aren't discovered until a
> spec is in a spec where making quick modifications are possible.

Then we assume they'll do what's necessary to ensure security, without
having to have explicit permission to do so in the specification.

>> Removing the sentence doesn't say UAs aren't allowed to improve
>> accessibility -- it's just removing what amounts to an
>> overspecification.
> Oh? What language in the spec allows this? I interpreted the MUSTs in
> the specs as MUSTs under all conditions except when explicitly stated
> otherwise.
> / Jonas

I don't know what you're asking Jonas. But since we're in agreement on
Matt's proposal, to remove the section, it doesn't matter.

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 18:09:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:08 UTC