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

All right, the chairs will discuss the applicability of this proposal to ISSUE-31.

 - Maciej

On Feb 7, 2011, at 1:23 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Maciej,
> 
>> First, let me note that this set of questions is in no way official or
>> endorsed by the chairs.
> 
> True. I raised issue 31. Steve, Josh, and I worked on it from before
> there was a tracker. It is a big issue.  Its scope covers alt in the
> <img> design space. I wrote that Wiki page to help people understand
> the three parts of the issue.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ian's (proposal 1) and Steve's (proposal 8) and mine (proposal 9) all
> address the question, "Where/who will define requirements on the
> possible values of alt attribute."
> 
>> However, since the chairs have not yet made an official ruling on whether
>> this question is in scope...
> 
> Okay.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It is  Proposal 9.
> 
>> The original definition of the issue only appears to cover the first of these questions, not 2 and 3:
> 
> Note: Action 54: Third Draft bound to issue 31, August 2008
> 
> "The accessibility requirements on the possible values of the alt
> attributes are defined by WCAG 2.0 and not HTML 5. "
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Action54AltAttributeThirdDraft#Authoring_Requirements
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/54
> 
> Best Regards,
> Laura
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 21:30:35 UTC