From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Thu Jun 18 05:33:51 2009 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:33:51 -0500 Subject: [html4all] HTML5 Bug 7034 Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0906180533w3c9d6a4cn900394b8185b689f@mail.gmail.com> > Bugzilla ? Bug 7034: change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or > "loyalty checker" > > Description: > Please change all instances of the phrase "conformance checker" in the spec to > either "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker". > > Reporter: Michael(tm) Smith http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034 -- Laura L. Carlson From rob at robburns.com Thu Jun 18 10:15:49 2009 From: rob at robburns.com (Robert J Burns) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:15:49 -0500 Subject: [html4all] HTML5 Bug 7034 In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0906180533w3c9d6a4cn900394b8185b689f@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0906180533w3c9d6a4cn900394b8185b689f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Laura, On Jun 18, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: >> Bugzilla ? Bug 7034: change "conformance checker" to "ideology >> checker" or >> "loyalty checker" >> >> Description: >> Please change all instances of the phrase "conformance checker" in >> the spec to >> either "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker". >> >> Reporter: Michael(tm) Smith > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034 Is that a joke? I haven't been following this thread close enough. Take care, Rob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foliot at wats.ca Thu Jun 18 19:41:22 2009 From: foliot at wats.ca (John Foliot - WATS.ca) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:41:22 -0700 Subject: [html4all] HTML5 Bug 7034 In-Reply-To: References: <1c8dbcaa0906180533w3c9d6a4cn900394b8185b689f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01a701c9f087$6eac3300$4c049900$@ca> Robert J Burns wote: > > Is?that?a?joke??I?haven't?been?following?this >?thread?close?enough. > >From all appearances this is not a joke. I started a thread last week asking about the real value in conformance vis-?-vis HTML5, and from that thread came comments from Rob Sayre (I believe) that Henri?s ?validator? was in fact more of an ideology checker, as it appears that user agents (browsers) will render non valid and valid content equally (this confirmed, at least for Firefox, by Jonas Siking) ? they do not throw critical errors on non-valid code, thus striving for valid code is an ideological desire, but one step removed from actual consequences. Ergo, let?s call a spade a spade. Somewhat surprised by the turn of events that have subsequently transpired, but truth in advertising... JF From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Thu Jun 18 19:46:58 2009 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (catherine) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:46:58 -0400 Subject: [html4all] HTML5 Bug 7034 In-Reply-To: <01a701c9f087$6eac3300$4c049900$@ca> References: <1c8dbcaa0906180533w3c9d6a4cn900394b8185b689f@mail.gmail.com> <01a701c9f087$6eac3300$4c049900$@ca> Message-ID: <4A3AFC22.3010907@catherine-roy.net> John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: > Robert J Burns wote: >> Is that a joke? I haven't been following this >> thread close enough. >> > >>From all appearances this is not a joke. I started a thread last week > asking about the real value in conformance vis-?-vis HTML5, and from that > thread came comments from Rob Sayre (I believe) that Henri?s ?validator? was > in fact more of an ideology checker, as it appears that user agents > (browsers) will render non valid and valid content equally (this confirmed, > at least for Firefox, by Jonas Siking) ? they do not throw critical errors > on non-valid code, thus striving for valid code is an ideological desire, > but one step removed from actual consequences. Ergo, let?s call a spade a > spade. > > Somewhat surprised by the turn of events that have subsequently transpired, > but truth in advertising... Still, if this is not a joke, not sure this is a good thing (i.e. pretty sure it is not). -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net From jason at jasonjgw.net Thu Jun 18 20:10:29 2009 From: jason at jasonjgw.net (Jason White) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:10:29 +1000 Subject: [html4all] HTML5 Bug 7034 In-Reply-To: <4A3AFC22.3010907@catherine-roy.net> References: <1c8dbcaa0906180533w3c9d6a4cn900394b8185b689f@mail.gmail.com> <01a701c9f087$6eac3300$4c049900$@ca> <4A3AFC22.3010907@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <20090619031029.GA28692@jdc.jasonjgw.net> catherine wrote: > Still, if this is not a joke, not sure this is a good thing (i.e. pretty > sure it is not). I agree. Surely, however, fatal errors were never the point here - I thought the basic principle was that if a document conforms to the HTML specification, user agents that implement the specification will parse and render it in a consistent manner. Also, user agents are only a subset of HTML processors: the specification equally applies to authoring tools, where the "be strict in what you emit, liberal in what you accept" principle suggests stronger syntactic validation is desirable. HTML has always required user agents to handle non-conforming markup gracefully, as far back at least as HTML 2.0, if memory serves. From rob at robburns.com Thu Jun 18 20:10:21 2009 From: rob at robburns.com (Robert J Burns) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:10:21 -0500 Subject: [html4all] HTML5 Bug 7034 In-Reply-To: <4A3AFC22.3010907@catherine-roy.net> References: <1c8dbcaa0906180533w3c9d6a4cn900394b8185b689f@mail.gmail.com> <01a701c9f087$6eac3300$4c049900$@ca> <4A3AFC22.3010907@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <6CED29F0-529E-4120-8007-39571325141D@robburns.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Fri Jun 19 10:56:49 2009 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:56:49 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Excerpt from DisabilityLand Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0906191056k13d24a2ax91060de11d483f3@mail.gmail.com> "Think of it, for a moment, this way. If the personal computer had been invented by someone paralyzed from the neck down, do you suppose it would have included a keyboard or a mouse as standard equipment? Or if the personal computer had been invented by someone who was blind, wouldn't it follow that the standard computer screen might have been available only as a special option for sighted users? "But the personal computer wasn't invented by people with disabilities. It was invented instead by some talented engineers who, like most people, had little or no personal experience with disabled others. As a result, obstacles were unintentionally part of the original design. "In most cases the obstacles weren't very big. But then again, the 2-inch curb on the sidewalk doesn't seem to be much of an impediment either. Unless you're driving a heavy wheelchair." Source: DisabilityLand by Alan Brightman Select Books (NY) (March 31, 2008). Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 09:59:48 2009 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:59:48 -0500 Subject: [html4all] HTML5 Bug 7034 In-Reply-To: References: <1c8dbcaa0906180533w3c9d6a4cn900394b8185b689f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0906220959l5a0a6c01uc9412a4e017495fa@mail.gmail.com> Hi Rob, >> Bugzilla ? Bug 7034: change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or >> >> "loyalty checker" > Is?that?a?joke??I?haven't?been?following?this?thread?close?enough. Some explanation at: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090619#l-265 Discussion Thread on www-archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/thread.html#msg100 Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 10:02:04 2009 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:02:04 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Google Blog Post: "A new landmark in computer vision" Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0906221002g291b8303xbabe507a1604e26c@mail.gmail.com> A new landmark in computer vision By Jay Yagnik, Head of Computer Vision Research "Science fiction books and movies have long imagined that computers will someday be able to see and interpret the world. At Google, we think computer vision has tremendous potential benefits for consumers, which is why we're dedicated to research in this area. And today, a Google team is presenting a paper on landmark recognition (think: Statue of Liberty, Eiffel Tower) at the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) conference in Miami, Florida. In the paper, we present a new technology that enables computers to quickly and efficiently identify images of more than 50,000 landmarks from all over the world with 80% accuracy..." Full post at: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-landmark-in-computer-vision.html Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From faulkner.steve at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 03:17:10 2009 From: faulkner.steve at gmail.com (Steven Faulkner) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:17:10 +0100 Subject: [html4all] evidence of harm Message-ID: <55687cf80906250317h40431636wd6e386affa35870a@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ian, you wrote: annevk2: that's not the path of least resistance; i, for one, would object strongly to that solution as it has been shown to actually harm users [1] While i think the summary attribute has 1. been abused 2. been incorrectly used 3. been a unecessary time sink for all involved in its presence or lack of in HTML 5. 4. been concentrated on at the expense of other more important accessibility issues. I don't know of any evidence where it has been shown to "harm users" you wrote: i guess i wish the chairs would at least give some guidance on how to proceed agreed, if this would have occured 6 months or a year ago, then a lot less time and effort would have been wasted. -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html From faulkner.steve at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 07:06:14 2009 From: faulkner.steve at gmail.com (Steven Faulkner) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:06:14 +0100 Subject: [html4all] evidence of harm In-Reply-To: <4A435B64.8070702@intertwingly.net> References: <55687cf80906250317h40431636wd6e386affa35870a@mail.gmail.com> <4A435B64.8070702@intertwingly.net> Message-ID: <55687cf80906250706w5fd58d31r3eaa6ed2de05cabf@mail.gmail.com> Hi sam, >you stated that my response on obfuscates the issue for you much clearer this time, thank you. My understanding was that it had previously been decided that the summary issue would be put to a vote: "ACTION-126 - Send a call to the WG to update the Wiki page to adequately reflect both (all) viewpoints on summary, in prep. for a vote [on Sam Ruby - due 2009-06-11]." [1] On the issue of alternative specs: If a person or group of people have a an issue with a particular section of Ian's spec, then do they need to create a whole now spec or just create an alternative version of a section of the spec? Creating a whole new spec sounds impractical and unnecessary to me. If it is just a section, what is (will be) the process for deciding between the section in Ians spec and an alternative. I ask this as I have previously spent time on alternatives not found there to be any process for dealing with them other than Ian reviewing them. Also in the case of the issues of canvas accessibility, while I have put forward some ideas about it [2], I don't have the technical knowledge (I am no expert) to develop and adequate specification. But I do not think that because no one who is capable will step up to write a spec, it means that the issues should not be dealt with. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/126 [2] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=362 regards steve 2009/6/25 Sam Ruby : > Steven Faulkner wrote: >> >> Hi Ian, >> you wrote: >> annevk2: that's not the path of least resistance; i, for one, >> would object strongly to that solution as it has been shown to >> actually harm users [1] >> >> While i think the summary attribute has >> 1. been abused >> 2. been incorrectly used >> 3. been a unecessary time sink ?for all involved in its presence or >> lack of in HTML 5. >> 4. been concentrated on at the expense of other more important >> accessibility issues. >> >> I don't know of any evidence where it has been shown to "harm users" >> >> you wrote: >> i guess i wish the chairs would at least give some guidance on >> how to proceed >> >> agreed, if this would have occured 6 months or a year ago, then a lot >> less time and effort would have been wasted. > > Steven, the last time I tried to answer this, you stated that my response on > obfuscates the issue for you[1]. ?I'll try again, but if I'm not successful, > I'll need more to go on in order to be more helpful. > > I'll try to paint a complete picture, which means that I need to start from > the beginning. ?Bear with me. ?Meanwhile, while I don't doubt that there > will be cases in the future where Ian will need to be overruled, at the > present time I don't see summary as being one of those cases. ?If people > really want to put this to a vote, I'll accommodate, but I will need some > help in formulating the question. ?Longer answer follows: > > ?- - - > > Ian volunteers to author a document. ?There are limits on what you can ask > any volunteer to do. ?My first six months as co-chair, I've focused on > removing obstacles which may have been preventing more people from > volunteering. ?The next six months I intend to be spending more of my time > supporting those that actually chose to do so. > > If this means more specifications each purporting to be HTML 5 with a > survival of the fittest determining which one advances, I'm OK with that. > ?Better would be more documents with clear divisions of labor. Best would be > cooperation. > > No, I am not singling out any one individual as not-being cooperative, there > is something that everybody needs to work on. ?That includes me. That > includes you. ?That includes Ian. ?That includes Chris Wilson, an innocent > victim in this particular discussion, just one that I happen to think would > be fun to pick on at this particular point in time. > > I am totally sympathetic to the notion that the case has not yet been made > for a summary attribute. ?What I have heard to date leads me to believe that > the long term goal is to replace this attribute. ?Meanwhile those that > advocate its "reinstatement" are "disinclined to reinvent this particular > wheel at this particular time."[2] > > A much more tenable position would be for somebody to step forward and do > this work, and to argue that the summary attribute be listed in section 12.3 > as vestigial markup. ?If that work were done, I personally doubt that a vote > would be necessary, but if it came to that, I would vote for it. ?At the > present time, I personally would vote against anything that simply suggested > that summary be "reinstated" unless I felt that those advocating such had a > firm conviction such an approach was the right long term solution. > > Meanwhile, Shelley has stepped forward and volunteered to edit both this > section and the section on semantic metadata. ?Mike Smith has indicated[3] > that he is ready to set her up with write access to the document repository > to the group. > > ?- - - > > In summary, the path I suggest is to find somebody who is willing to be an > editor and make your case. ?That could be Ian. ?That could be Shelley. ?That > could be you. ?If we end up with multiple competing documents at the time we > wish to enter Last Call, the document with the greatest amount of consensus > will be the one that advances. > > If any of this is in any way unclear, please let me know. > > - Sam Ruby > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0120.html > [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/www-archive at w3.org/msg02575.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0654.html > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Sat Jun 27 00:39:26 2009 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:39:26 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Bug 7056 and
elements should allow flow content children Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0906270039u169c1b13q8bc6c77541787f54@mail.gmail.com> Bug 7056 Reporter: James Graham Description: "It seems reasonable to allow tables and figures to have multiple paragraphs or lists in their captions. Therefore we should not be over restrictive and should allow flow content in table and figure captioning elements." http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7056 "I note that one side effect of this change is that
can now appear in . This provides a mechanism for adding multiple levels of captioning information that, as far as I can tell, is equivalent _on a technical level_ to the element proposal advocated as an improvement [1] on the HTML 4 table summary mechanisms. [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-1d4cc386df3edd130dd677e056ba2bf98961145a" - James Graham http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0753.html -- Laura L. Carlson From laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com Sat Jun 27 00:48:02 2009 From: laura.lee.carlson at gmail.com (Laura Carlson) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:48:02 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Summary Automatically Generated by User Agent Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0906270048m56936a3ck6e3ce7a602eb5c83@mail.gmail.com> Hello Everyone, Smylers and Simon Pieters have been brainstorming a table summary solution where the summary is automatically generated by the user agent. To quote [1]: "HTML 5 defines which headers apply to which cells, and obviously a user-agent knows which cells are merged, so possibly there could be an algorithmic way of generating descriptions of table structures for any (or at least a large proportion of) data tables. A user-agent could have a 'describe table structure' feature which is independent of an author providing a good (or indeed any) summary. "In terms of getting the information to those users who need it, this may have more success than engaging authors to write good summaries: user-agent developers seem on average more likely to follow the HTML 5 spec than most authors, and there are fewer of them. "If this were possible it would reduce the number of tables which require a handwritten summary, reducing the burden on authors." unquote. Thoughts? Thread starts at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/thread.html#msg684 Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson From rob at robburns.com Sat Jun 27 10:36:21 2009 From: rob at robburns.com (Robert J Burns) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:36:21 -0500 Subject: [html4all] Summary Automatically Generated by User Agent In-Reply-To: <1c8dbcaa0906270048m56936a3ck6e3ce7a602eb5c83@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c8dbcaa0906270048m56936a3ck6e3ce7a602eb5c83@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <044D4BBA-0C86-4025-AEA0-AEC20BAD5286@robburns.com> Hi Laura, I think it is definitely a good idea to get UAs ? especially assistive UAs ? to provide better context and structural overviews of tables automatically, though I think this represents a poor replacement for the 'summary' attribute. Allowing users of assistive technology to query table structures is without a doubt helpful. However, summary is much more about the authorial intent for the table: especially when that authorial intent is readily apparent visually. While some day in the future AI might advance to the point of interpreting such visual clues programmatically, we are definitely not there yet. As an example, consider this table: The author conveys a lot of information nearly instantly to the visual user. A summary attribute might read ?While all four engines support 'autocomplete', one of them, WebKit, also supports 'range' and Presto version 9.0 supports all of the Web Forms 2.0 features.? Although it might be possible to imagine an algorithm that could come up with some rote version of that idea, I do not think such an algorithm generalizes very well. So I do not think it can replace the 'summary' attribute (or some like mechanism). However, the ability of assistive technology to provide something like that in the absence of an author provided summary would be nice. Note too that a visual user does not need to read that summary: it is redundant with the visual consumption of the table itself. In many ways this is similar to the headers work previously done. There the algorithms try to automatically associate the proper heading with its data. However, the author is still in control and can add attribute values to override those automatic associations. Take care, Rob On Jun 27, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > Smylers and Simon Pieters have been brainstorming a table summary > solution where the summary is automatically generated by the user > agent. To quote [1]: > > "HTML 5 defines which headers apply to which cells, and obviously a > user-agent knows which cells are merged, so possibly there could be an > algorithmic way of generating descriptions of table structures for any > (or at least a large proportion of) data tables. A user-agent could > have a 'describe table structure' feature which is independent of an > author providing a good (or indeed any) summary. > > "In terms of getting the information to those users who need it, this > may have more success than engaging authors to write good summaries: > user-agent developers seem on average more likely to follow the HTML 5 > spec than most authors, and there are fewer of them. > > "If this were possible it would reduce the number of tables which > require a handwritten summary, reducing the burden on authors." > unquote. > > Thoughts? > > Thread starts at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/thread.html#msg684 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: