- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:10:25 -0800
- To: "'David Bolter'" <david.bolter@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: "'Boris Zbarsky'" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
David Bolter wrote: > > John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: > > Okay then let's make sure that happens. Where and how is it likely to > happen? > A less annoyed JF suggests that you try to work within the HTML WG. I have not had much success with them in the past, and frankly have personally given up trying - but other calmer voices continue to hammer away. Sam Ruby has now suggested (If I understand what I read) that if folks want to go off and work on aspects of the current spec out-of the mainstream, and then return with a better proposal that the WG *should* be receptive of the work, and not dismiss it out-of-hand. Whether or not this will be successful remains to be seen, but having Sam in there has renewed my faith somewhat that saner voices *can* prevail, and that the daily active members (check out the IRC band to see the cast of characters) do not completely hijack the final spec. There *is* a need for E & E here, but we also need a spec with some teeth in it that ensures that content creators *do* what must be done, and not simply a suggestion that it is a good idea, but people are people and we don't want to get anyone's nose out of joint by *forcing* them to do something... which seems to be the prevailing wind within the WG. I continue to argue that any element within HTML 5 must have a mandated requirement to ensure accessibility, whether it be the @alt, @longdesc, @summary issues, or mandated accessible fallback for <canvas>. Good luck. JF > cheers, > David
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 02:11:06 UTC