W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-122 shalott-example: Call for revisions

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:54:10 -0800
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <4DA621D2-757B-4730-ACCD-684A0ED85661@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

On Feb 7, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> On 2/7/11, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> Hi Maciej,
>>>> * Laura's proposal to remove text alternative examples goes considerably
>>>> beyond the scope of the issue, in the judgment of the chairs
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/TextAlternativesIssue122>.
>>>> The original scope of the issue was about the details of one particular
>>>> example. This proposal removes all accessibility advice for textual
>>>> equivalents, and in the course of doing so entirely deletes a WG draft.
>>>> It
>>>> is reasonable to propose this, but not as part of this narrow issue. We
>>>> offer the following options:
>>>>  ** Revise the Change Proposal to fit the narrower scope of ISSUE-122
>>>> (just the one example that was at issue).
>>>>  ** File a bug requesting the changes in the proposal, and if necessary
>>>> escalate it. It will then be treated as its own issue.
>>>> It's fine to do either or both of these things (or none if there is no
>>>> desire to pursue the issue further).
>>> Can my proposal for issue 122 proposal be considered for issue 31 instead?
>> ISSUE-31 is about the normative authoring requirements for alt, and already
>> has a huge number of proposals and many sub-issues. I think it would be
>> better not to add complexity to the resolution of that issue.
>> - Maciej
>>> It would seem to fit in the scope of the third question of that issue:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElementSurveyConformaceChoices#3._Text_Alternative_Examples_Question:_.22Where.2Fwho_will_define_requirements_on_the_possible_values_of_text_alternatives_examples.3F.22

First, let me note that this set of questions is in no way official or endorsed by the chairs. The text of ISSUE-31 itself is about machine-checkable authoring conformance criteria: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31>. It does not say anything about examples.

However, since the chairs have not yet made an official ruling on whether this question is in scope...

> Then will the decision for issue 31 be closed without prejudice? My
> proposal covers the same question as:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElementSurveyConformaceChoices#3._Text_Alternative_Examples_Question:_.22Where.2Fwho_will_define_requirements_on_the_possible_values_of_text_alternatives_examples.3F.22

Does your ISSUE-122 Change Proposal take a distinct position on this question from any of the existing proposals? From the chart you link, it seems to match Proposal 9.  I think adding more redundant proposals to ISSUE-31 is not helpful at this stage.

Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 20:54:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:09 UTC