Re: Example canvas element use - accessibility concerns

John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> 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. 

Cool.  I'm pleased to see progress being made.  Meanwhile, I'm tracking 
an action item for Matt May:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/98

Based on Thursday's input by Matt, my understanding is that this issue 
isn't yet resolved.  Give that we are still a ways away from Last Call, 
as long as we are making progress, I'm OK with that.

>> 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."

And if my "might very well be" was viewed by some as "likely", I too 
apologize.  My intent wasn't to take a position myself, but merely to 
acknowledge a possibility.

> JF

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 02:19:44 UTC