- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:07:31 -0800
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: 'Matt May' <mattmay@adobe.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:21 AM, John Foliot wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> which requires cognition - no machine today can do this. > >> >> Nobody is saying "substitute for". The question is just whether repair >> techniques are allowed in the face of broken content. > > I think that perhaps I've not explained myself correctly, of course they > should be allowed. I don't think they should be prescribed in the > specification, especially given that the root of this discussion, the > removal of language that referenced non-existent techniques, simply sought > to remove reference to said non-existent techniques. Nothing in the Change > Proposal suggests that *all* repairs techniques be foregone, only the > reference to 'Heuristics'. Ok. What I'm trying to figure out is whether a general statement that repair techniques are allowed would be acceptable to everybody. > >> I ask you again: >> are you saying that emergency repair techniques by the UA or AT should >> be explicitly banned? Note that this would make *all* existing AT >> noncompliant. (The most common current emergency repair for missing alt >> is to read the filename.) > > I am not. But I have grave concerns that we reference in a Standard a > technique that is a non-technique, as it can foster a sense of complacency > in authors - it is but wishful thinking today. I agree that it doesn't make sense to specifically mention techniques the practicality of which is uncertain. I think it would be better to list no specific techniques, or list some examples that are clearly practical today. > >>> >>> I think any statement that suggests futuristic magic as a potential >>> technical possibility inside a technical specification and standard >> is >>> wrong, and should be avoided. >> >> I believe what I suggested was exactly the opposite of that. > > Then I think we are essentially in agreement. That would be great. This email is to double-check that we are really on the same page. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 09:08:06 UTC