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

Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:11:48 +0100
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org) <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120223131148687951.350cb4f8@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis, Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:47:57 +0000:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>> On 16 February last the HTML-A11Y Task Force teleconference meeting
>> reached consensus on a resolution requesting reconsideration of one
>> aspect of the Issue-31 decision logged at:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0452.html

>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0453.html

> As far as I can tell from the slapdash Details section, this Change
> Proposal would remove all conformance requirements for @alt for
> documents claiming to conform to W3C HTML5 (as opposed to HTML5 +
> WCAG2, or HTML5 + Alt Techniques, or whatever).
> Is that the intention? If not, please clarify the Change Proposal to
> state what, or at least, *where* the normative conformance
> requirements for documents claiming to conform to HTML5 would be. (A
> statement of the form: "HTML5 documents would be required to conform
> to forthcoming W3C Recommendation Z" would work as clarification.) If
> possible, please provide replacement text for section, which
> makes references to the sections the CP proposes to remove.

I would like the same clarification. 

Btw, I agree that two HTML5 specs should not contradict each others. 
But I do think HTML5 'proper' should contain basic advice and rules. 
Also, some of the concrete issues mentioned in this CP - such as the 
HTML5's permission to drop @alt or avoid validation, under certain 
situations - relates to other issues that have been — or are being — 
solved. For instance, the CAPTCHA example relates to what HTML5 says 
about permission to drop @alt. In that regard: How does the example in 
the HTML5 spec in principle differ from e.g. the permission to drop 
@alt inside a <figure>? It als not clear to me that only the HTML5 or 
only the HTML5-Alt-Tech spec is right. Perhaps the HTML5 could show 
both methods? I will also say that it is a weakness of the 
HTML5-Alt-Tech example that it does not present how to present the 
audio captcha.

Anyway: If an issue has been solved earlier, then this CP could look to 
circumvent previous process {unless the new spec too is bound by 
previous decisions, in which case: what's the point with a move?}, and 
w.r.t. issues that are being solved - such as the generator exception, 
which falls under the umbrella of HTML5 different permissions to drop 
@alt - then it perhaps needs to be solved, before it can be used as 
argument in favor of this CP?
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 12:12:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:48 UTC