- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:13:12 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Steve Faulkner, Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:44:14 +0000: >> Not sure what the TF thought they were voting for, but this implies to >> me there may be new normative requirements. > > none of the statements you have cited , from my reading, imply that > new normative requirements are to be minted No new normative requirements. But also no old normative requirements, as far as I can see. [But see below.] As result, there will be nil - zero - normative requirements - apart from WCAG [which already applies]: No normative alt authoring requirements in HTML5 proper, none in the alt techniques document - and none anywhere else. We have a focus on whether conformance checkers should be allowed to drop conformance checking of the @alt usage when the META Generator element occurs in the document. But we won't have @alt text validation if there is not going to be any normative authoring requirements. See below. > Any suggestions you have on how to modify the CP text > to make that clearer would be appreciated. My advice is to drop this CP and instead use the energy to focus on the remaining IMG related issues we have, including @longdesc. But if you insist on continuing with it, then update the CP with the following info: * Explain the precise fate of the @ALT techniques document: - Its [new] title - A list of the formats it will cover [Word, ODF, SVG, HTML, etc] - Who is to be responsible for it - which WG - Whether it is to be considered one of the many WCAG _techniques_. That is to say: Will it be a single technique document. Or will the document's many sections become independent technique documents. - How it differs or not differs from other WCAG technique documents and whether it will replace any existing WCAG technique documents and whether it will be authored in a way that differs from other WCAG technique documents - if @longdesc gets included in HTML5, will its usage be described in this document? - other relevant things * Explain consequences for - and relationship to - the HTML5 spec - The [possible] consequences for HTML5's section on 'Guidance for conformance checkers' [1] - whether you'll reuse *anything* of what your want to delete from HTML5 or whether you will start from scratch - how will you [not] be bound by the HTMLwg's [old] @alt related decisions - whether this CP will put to rest the current IMG related issues, such as the Generator exception and the @title usage issue. This may be seen as an extension to previous point: * Describe the consequences for conformance checking of @alt. - will there be any @alt checking in HTML5-conformances checkers or will such things be moved to a specialized checker. If there will be any kind of HTML5-conformance @alt checking, then: - what kind of checks HTML5-conformance checkers be required/asked to perform? E.g. will it be exactly like in HTMl4? Or will there be no requirement to check, but instead an encouragement to check - some things? - on which basis HTML5-conformance checkers will perform such checking - where are the requirement to be fulfilled described. - Currently, some @alt mistakes constitute Errors. It seems like this [possible] new approach could only allow trigger Warnings. Please explain. PS: I also encourage you to have much shorter and more precise Summary. Currently, I had to read as far as to the Details section, in order to start to get an overview of what it suggests. [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-img-element#guidance-for-conformance-checkers -- Leif H Silli
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 16:13:45 UTC