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: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:57:33 +0100
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120224205733623884.a1d4344d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Steve Faulkner, Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:03:36 +0000:

> WCAG has techniques for specific technologies/formats. It does not
> have specific normative requirements for specific technologues.
> HTML5 currently has 2 sets of normative requirements for aspects of
> text alternatives that have little do with HTML other than the use of
> the alt as the container for the text alternative.

Perhaps this systemic critique could be described in a systematic way? 
Like in a table? An attempt follows, except that I would have liked to 
see examples for each 'thing' - such as *examples* of where HTML5 
eventually threads the turf of WCAG:

        spec: HTML4 HTML5 WCAG
    features: yes   yes   no
  techniques: no?   yes   yes
requirements: no    yes   yes

Perhaps it just a 'sunk cost' feeling - and as such a feeling that 
should be ignored, but much energy went into what HTMl5 so far says 
about @alt text. Including much energy - such as decision processes -  
went into how to do conformance checking based on those rules. As said 
before: We would need to sew together the relationship between HTML5 
and 'these issues' anew, if we were to adopt this CP.
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 19:58:09 UTC

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