- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:50:53 -0700
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
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. There are also rationale sections relating to a "CAPTCHA Loophole" and a "WebCam Loophole" which do not appear to relate to any actual changes proposed in the Details section. That's not as critical a problem as changes without rationale, but it's something you may wish to address. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 04:51:26 UTC