W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2012

Re: img@relaxed CP [was: CfC: Close ISSUE-206: meta-generator by Amicable Resolution]

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 02:05:04 +0900
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120807170503.GE68105@sideshowbarker>
Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, 2012-08-07 09:47 -0700:

> >But part of the problem is what I mentioned early -- as far as I can see, there really is no online accessibility checking part that we can rely on for help with >this, so it seems like there is some expectation that we make up for the deficiency by handling it all in the markup validator.
> >
> Let me make sure I understand what you are suggesting here...
> RATHER THAN doing what you clearly believe is the right thing (ie. having
> an available accessibility checker), you would instead bastardize the
> HTML language itself with new rules or elements or attributes or (...)?

Please. I never used the word "bastardize" nor any sentiment like it. I
don't think adding this attribute to the HTML language would be inherently
harmful or bad. That said, I do think we if we add it to the spec, we
should do it on a provisional basis, with a plan to look at the effects of
it a year or two from now a evaluate whether it's been a success or not,
and drop it if it turns out to not have worked out the way we'd hoped.

> Remember, once something is in the language, removal is
> difficult/impossible.

Not sure about that. In HTML5 we already dropped a number of HTML4 markup
features which we have clear data to suggest they didn't work out the way
they were intended by the people who originally added them. (Some of which
originally appeared in the HTML4 draft with very little or no public
discussion or review of any kind.)

> Wouldn't be in everyone's (users, developers, standards writers, etc.) to
> simply invest in the creation of an accessibility checker?

Yeah it certainly would. 


Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 17:05:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:26 UTC