Re: Action: Proposal for HTML Access

Having read Jason's mail, and the private notes
that I have received from Daniel D., I am incensed.

I, as a member of the WAI WG took an action
to represent the WAI at the HTML, XML and CSS
meetings. I represented the group to the best
of my ability -- check with TV Raman. Through
my efforts, the HTML WG has agreed to accept 
a proposal. The process of the HTML WG requires
that an INDIVIDUAL be responsible for actions,
so I am the designated individual.

I have immediately reported the results of my efforts.
I have immediately indicated that a discussion
should ensue under the WAI mailing list, but not
the HTML WG mailing list. I have indicated that
private mail will be acceptable -- because I have
been around the block a few times and I know that
sometimes people want to say things without telling
the whole group what they think.

I have nothing to apologize for and I don't intend to.
I will continue to work for accessibility in the
Web protocols, as I have since 1994 with some success.
A brief history lesson would illustrate that I have
been one of the foremost (and most vocal) proponent
of the YRIF and WAI in the world. So please, if you 
want to be paranoid, please don't dump it on me.



At 02:13 PM 27-08-97 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>How is Murray's submission related to the WAI process and the various
>relevant action items which the WAI working group has been considering for
>the past few months? I thought there was intended to be a WAI results page
>established that would act as a means of communicating proposals and
>recommendations to the various W3C working groups, including the HTML WG.
>I admit to being somewhat confused as to how Murray's action item is
>integrated into ongoing WAI activities and the development of mechanisms
>whereby the WAI can influence the development of W3C standards.
>Incidentally, I would have expected the internal W3C procedures for
>dealing with WAI recommendations to have been established right from the
>outset of the project, as part of the W3C commitment to ensuring that its
>standards enable web technologies and resources to be fully accessible.
>
>Turning briefly to the specific proposals which Murray has mentioned, it
>is clear that most of them have been discussed in detail on this mailing
>list. Daniel Dardailler, Al Gilman and I have strongly and consistently
>argued for the inclusion of image maps within the definition of the OBJECT
>element. The question of whether ALT should be a required attribute of the
>IMG element still appears to be controversial, as is the related issue of
>whether an empty ALT string would be acceptable, even desirable, in
>certain circumstances. I am surprised that Murray is suggesting that
>LONGDESC should be associated with OBJECT. Rather, I understood that it
>was intended to be an attribute of IMG. If I recall the HTML 4.0 draft
>correctly, it effectively prescribes that the innermost OBJECT in a nested
>series of OBJECT elements contain a textual description or label of the
>resource to which reference is being made. Thus, the long description can
>be incorporated within OBJECT (given that it is a block level element) and
>there appears to be no need for a separate LONGDESC element or attribute.
>The contents of OBJECT are displayed whenever the user agent is unable to
>present the resource in question, or, presumably, in circumstances where
>the user has opted not to display images, etc.
>
>
>
>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Murray Maloney				Email: murray@yuri.org
Technical Marketing Director		Web:   http://www.grif.com
GRIF S.A.				Phone: (905) 509-9120

Yuri Rubinsky Insight Foundation	http://www.yuri.org
Please Make a Tax-Deductible Donation   http://www.yuri.org/donate.html

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 1997 11:01:03 UTC