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

Re: comments on 'private use' section of proposal - Sanity check

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:18:55 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinnWAv8yz7B-O3AjyS2Ov-5HOvMgFqeoD3g4xyI@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
What this means is that a document can be both conforming and non conforming
depending on who access it.

Example: if I publish this document and allow a person i know can view the
image to access the document, then its conforming, if I then allow a person
I know cannot view the image, it then becomes non conforming.

<!DOCTYPE html>
<p><img src="example.gif"></p>

Maciej wrote:

"One thing that's not entirely clear to me is why the private communication
exception is needed"

I don't think it is given the advice for authoring tools states:

"Authoring tools are exempt from the strict requirements of using elements
only for their specified purpose, but only to the extent that authoring
tools are not yet able to determine author intent. However, authoring tools
must not automatically misuse elements or encourage their users to do so."


On 18 July 2010 17:42, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

> On Jul 18, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> A sanity check,
> . An image in an e-mail or private document intended for a
> specific person who is known to be able to view images
> "*This section does not apply to documents that are publicly accessible,
> or whose target audience is not necessarily personally known to the author,
> such as documents on a Web site, e-mails sent to public mailing lists, or
> software documentation."*
> *
> *
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1.html#an-image-in-an-e-mail-or-private-document-intended-for-a-specific-person-who-is-known-to-be-able-to-view-images
> *
> *
> The private email exception does not apply to  apply to a class of
> authoring tools, it only applies if you send a private email to a person or
> people who you know can see the image.
> So depending on who I send it to, will decide if it is conforming or non
> conforming so unless the email client provides the ability for me to add a
> text alternative it WILL allow non conforming documents to be published.
> One thing that's not entirely clear to me is why the private communication
> exception is needed, given the generator exception. It seems to me that mail
> clients producing HTML should include the generator meta tag. This seems
> simpler than relying on a manual setting in the conformance checker.
> It seems the only additional case covered by the private communication
> exception is hand-authored HTML sent as email. While I won't claim this
> never happens, I would guess it is extremely rare, and perhaps such a narrow
> use case does not need special handling. (There is also the possibility of
> non-email hand-authored HTML documents being exchanged with a known fixed
> audience, but this too seems like a very rare scenario.)
> On the other hand, Laura's change proposal opposes the generator exception
> as well, so I am not sure this line of reasoning gets us anywhere.
> Regards,
> Maciej

with regards

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

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
Received on Sunday, 18 July 2010 17:19:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:21 UTC