Re: ISSUE-31 Change Proposal

Hi Sam and Maciej,

> On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> I think/hope that I have now addressed the concerns that you have raised.
>> I:
>>
>> 1. Added rationale for all changes.
>> 2. Removed the reference to the paragraph-section-heading loophole, as
>> Ian indeed removed it from the spec per as requested in Bug 9217.
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9217
>> I just hope it doesn't reappear in the spec.
>>
>> In addition, I updated all three of my current proposals for Issue 31.
>> So far, all together I have three proposals and possibly a fourth.
>> They are:
>>
>> 1. Replace img Guidance for Conformance Checkers. January 26, 2010.
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
>> In this one I tried to incorporate WAI CG's advice.
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
>
> I still don't see any rationale given for the following three alt exemptions
> added by your change proposal:
>
> * aria-labelledby attribute present (non-empty only)
> * aria-label attribute is present (non-empty only)
> * role attribute is present and has a value of "presentation".
>
> The "Rationale" section has a factual description of what these mechanisms
> are and what they do, but as far as I can tell, no reason is given for why
> it should be allowed to omit alt when one of these is present. Please either
> add rationale for these changes or adjust the scope of the Change Proposal
> to exclude them.

This has been updated. Please re-add the Change Proposal
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126
to the Change Proposal Status Table for HTML ISSUE-31, I believe
Maciej had previously removed it [1].

If there is anything else I need to do to make it worthy of
consideration, please let me know.

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0028.html
-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 16:39:19 UTC