W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > August 2008

Re: ***DHSPAM*** Re: Request for clarification of the case where 'the image isn't discussed by the surrounding text, but it has some relevance'

From: William Loughborough <wloughborough@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:38:03 -0700
Message-ID: <1e3451610808251238p467427c6p2943214bad1a57e6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
"Satisfactorily"? to whom? "Semantic Significance" isn't optional nor is it
a God-given decision point for authors.

If something is put into the content, it is (even if the author thinks it
insignificant/unimportant/decorative) *significant*. The idea that we can
use The Web without the accompanying attention to accessibility is bankrupt.
It is everybody's Web, not just the authors'.

The only thing authors can claim is the same "privilege of judgment" as to
what matters as that available to the consumer and if they include it, it
matters. They can't unscramble the eggs.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> At 14:02  +0100 25/08/08, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Only the page author can satisfactorily answer the question of what is
> semantically significant.
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 19:38:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:25:22 UTC