- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of 1981km@gmail.com <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:25:01 +0000
- To: 1981km@gmail.com,www-archive@w3.org
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'ISSUE-66 - Image Analysis Heuristics - Straw Poll for Objections' (HTML Working Group) for Krzysztof Maczyński. --------------------------------- Objections to the Change Proposal to Strike Paragraph ---- We have a Change Proposal to remove the image heuristics paragraph from the img element section. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below. Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it. Objections: --------------------------------- Objections to the Change Proposal to Keep The Paragraph As Is ---- We have a Change Proposal to keep the HTML5 specification as is. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below. Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it. Objections: see my Objections to the Change Proposal to Be More Explicit --------------------------------- Objections to the Change Proposal to Be More Explicit ---- We have a Change Proposal to be more explicit about potential repair techniques. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below. Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it. Objections: The paragraph and suggested longer replacement are disproved of by notable accessibility experts and are widely believed to be far from consensus and from providing best possible guidance for implementors and authors. Also from this WG's angle it doesn't belong in HTML because of broader applicability. The right document to whose WG the collected suggestions should be passed for due treatment with expert attention (not excluding ours, just moving responsibility), refinement and probable inclusion is UAAG. In this way spec bloat (our big problem) will be avoided, concerns decoupled, architectural consistency maintained and independent evolvability assured. The same reasoning pretty much applies against the Change Proposal to Keep The Paragraph As Is. These answers were last modified on 19 May 2010 at 19:23:10 U.T.C. by Krzysztof Maczyński Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-66-objection-poll/ until 2010-05-19. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 19:25:03 UTC