- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:09:27 -0500
- To: "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML4All <list@html4all.org>
- Cc: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
Gez Lemon wrote: >> I think the issue should be about the integrity of the structure. Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > I think the issue should be about what makes the most content most accessible. I think it is both. 1. The PF/WAI issue is to tell the HTMLWG what mechanisms and features are needed to make content accessible. 2. The HTML5 issue is to provide the mechanisms and features that WAI needs. Making content accessible is WAI's domain. AUWG, UAWG, WCAGWG etc are chartered to set accessibility guidelines and HTML WG is not. When PF says "the failure of the HTML5 draft to make @alt on <img> an across-the-board requirement (even if sometimes it has the value of "") is a bug", as they already have [1], alt should indeed be reinstated as a requirement in the HTML5 spec. PF's advice should not be ignored. Lowering the structural integrity requirements of a markup language doesn't help the people that structure was intended to help in the first place. Putting the faults of poor authoring tools (and authors) above the needs of a feature which allows the creation of accessible content pays no heed to PF's guidance. HTML5 WG should listen to PFWG on this and on the pending request for advice regarding "what should an authoring or publishing tool insert, in a case where no alt has been provided by the author, but the image is known to be 'critical content'?" [2] Best Regards, Laura [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0082.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0408.html
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 18:10:06 UTC