- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:51:29 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Sam Ruby wrote: > > If we find that we have WG consensus on the statement mentioned in the > top only Change Proposal that we have to date, namely "Do not make it > non-conforming in HTML5 for authors to provide text alternatives for > images considered to enhance the themes or subject matter of the page > content", then we would expect every WG document to be updated to match > that consensus. Well it depends on whether the image in question is purely decorative or whether it has corresponding textual content; in the latter case, it would fall under the category of "a phrase or paragraph with an alternative graphical representation: charts, diagrams, graphs, maps, illustrations" in the HTML spec and would in fact be required to have alternative text. > The original bugs were 9077 and 9081. Neither of these are asking for a normative change, so it seems like you are violating your own process by taking an issue escalated from those bugs and turning them into issues of a normative nature. It also seems like a waste of everyone's time since the suggestion in question is apparently uncontroversial and could be resolved via the normal bug resolution process if it indeed requires any changes at all. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 21:52:03 UTC