- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:30:29 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > >> At this point, asking you to document the rationale for everything in >> the draft is a bit much to ask, but I do believe that asking you to >> document the rationale for sections of the spec that have open issues >> associated with them is a reasonable request. In this case, we are >> talking about issue 31[3]. > > Ok: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0759.html > > Now, can we get back to you, Sam, explaining to me what problem Steven's > proposal is solving, since apparently you understand his proposal? Ian reminded me offlist that I had neglected to answer this question. I understand that Steven has proposed a set of rules for validators to use which he believes will encourage the adoption of alt attributes. I further understand that Ian has draft text which proposes a different set of rules for validators to use which he believes will encourage the adoption of alt attributes. I understand both sets of rules. As to whether or not I understand the rationale for each: frankly no. Actually, that's not quite right. I've read the words in each case, believe that you both are being a bit, shall we say, optimistic. But that's just me. In the long run, the question to me isn't one of technical superiority, but rather one of which is more likely to be followed, which is more likely to be included in educational materials, and the like. I don't believe that either proposal presents an unreasonable burden to validator implementers. - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 19:35:26 UTC