- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:02:48 -0800
- To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Rob Sayre'" <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > > > I don't think it (@alt) is resolved, but too I don't see a proposal. > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/31 > There have been numerous proposals, none of which seem palpable to Ian to date, although my suggestion of April 2008 looked remarkably like Ian's Option F of August 2008: "The current wording in the editor's draft is Option F (a variation of Foliot's proposal)." http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute http://html4all.org/pipermail/list_html4all.org/2008-April/000797.html There are a number of suggestions/proposals in that wiki that Ian unilaterally dismissed without (IMHO) a full and open airing of the ideas. Although since his current suggestion is indeed very similar to one that I floated, I personally am on the fence for the most part. > > That's a bit more than I said. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Feb/0091.html Sam, if I mis-read or spoke out of turn, then I apologize. This was my interpretation of your statement: "And in the case of alt, the right baby step might very well be to continue to make it required unconditionally." JF
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 02:03:27 UTC