- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:10:54 -0400
- To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- CC: 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Steve Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 'Judy Brewer' <jbrewer@w3.org>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, 'HTMLWG WG' <public-html@w3.org>
On 05/18/2012 12:07 PM, John Foliot wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> It seems to me that it's obvious that if de facto all non-hand authored >> pages do not need to provide @alt, then some of them will fail to supply >> @alt unintentionally. > > A reasonable conclusion. Clearly people within the working group disagree as to what is "obvious" to them. > And yet because there is no conclusive proof[1] > > [1: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012May/0094.html] You are actively misrepresenting what is being requested. Please go back and re-read the email that you cite. In particular, the word "conclusive" appears nowhere in that email. > (Or as I told a friend the other day, "...So because we have no *actual > proof* that giving a running chain-saw to a 6-year old is a dumb idea, let's > go ahead and give running chain-saws to 6-year olds...") Ratchet the rhetoric down. It isn't helpful. Consider this to be a public warning[2]. - Sam Ruby [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ListGuidelines
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 17:11:25 UTC