| 00:52 | <Hixie> | norbert_: the WHATWG spec will track whatever implementors do |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | some articles on the fork |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/22/3175248/html5-fork-w3c-whatwg |
| 10:09 | <annevk> | http://www.i-programmer.info/news/191-htmlcss/4531-which-html5-whatwg-and-w3c-split.html |
| 10:10 | <annevk> | http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/22/html5-work-splits-into-living-and-snapshot-standards-developers-need-not-standard/ |
| 10:10 | <annevk> | nothing much interesting though |
| 14:49 | <BenoitRen> | Hi all. |
| 14:50 | <BenoitRen> | There's an old website I maintain (webmistress vanished from the interwebs more than a decade ago), and I've been looking through it again recently to improve the HTML further. One thing I'm having trouble with is images that get referenced explicitly in the text. |
| 14:51 | <BenoitRen> | Like, you have <p><img src="..."></p><p>This picture shows blahblahblah.</p> |
| 14:51 | <BenoitRen> | As this is supposed to be a standards compliant mirror of the original site, I don't have much leeway in changing the text. :/ |
| 14:53 | <BenoitRen> | Example: http://users.skynet.be/fa258499/beyondalgo/story/you_guide.html |
| 15:58 | <AryehGregor> | BenoitRen, what's wrong with images that get referenced explicitly in the text? |
| 16:07 | <BenoitRen> | AryehGregor: The image might not be showing. |
| 16:08 | <AryehGregor> | BenoitRen, . . . and? You can't really do much about that. Provide alt text if that helps. |
| 16:08 | <AryehGregor> | But I mean, if the point of something is to talk about a picture, and the picture doesn't display, there's a limited amount you can do about it. |
| 16:08 | <BenoitRen> | AryehGregor: But what would I put in the alt text that logically precedes text like "This image shows...". |
| 16:08 | <BenoitRen> | ? |
| 16:09 | <AryehGregor> | I dunno. "Image of ..." |
| 16:09 | <BenoitRen> | That's usually bad alt text, though. :/ |
| 16:09 | <BenoitRen> | alt text should be a replacement for the image. |
| 16:11 | <AryehGregor> | If possible. |
| 16:11 | <AryehGregor> | Or, rather, to the extent possible. |
| 16:12 | <AryehGregor> | A good way to think about it is: "If I were reading this page to someone over the phone, how would I describe it?" |
| 16:12 | <AryehGregor> | The answer here would probably be something like "Then there's a picture of X, and after that it says . . ." |
| 16:12 | <BenoitRen> | Yeah. |
| 16:13 | <AryehGregor> | Sometimes you can't do any better than that. |
| 16:13 | <AryehGregor> | In other cases, you might read what the picture says (if it's really text in picture format), or just skip it (if it's decorative), and that's fine too. |
| 16:14 | <AryehGregor> | Although I think I read a survey of blind users who say they'd prefer to have decorative images mentioned. |
| 16:14 | <AryehGregor> | I guess because that just gives them a better idea of what the page contains. |
| 16:16 | <boogyman> | AryehGregor: can you give me an example of a semantically appropriate decorative image |
| 16:16 | <AryehGregor> | I don't know what that means. |
| 16:17 | <AryehGregor> | So no. :) |
| 16:18 | <boogyman> | An example of a decorative image that has meaning in the context of its placement, instead of just there for visual "decorative purposes". |
| 16:18 | <boogyman> | CSS and image replacement is around of a reason :| for the latter |
| 16:25 | <BenoitRen> | But a decorative image by definition isn't semantic... |
| 22:03 | <BenoitRen> | I'm going now. Bye! And thanks. :) |
| 22:25 | <david_carlisle> | MikeSmith: If someone opened a bug and it got cloned to WhatWG product, shouldn't they still be the reporter (or at least on the CC list) so that if (to take a random example) Hixie closes it as wontfix, the original reporter gets notified? |
| 22:32 | <annevk> | the clone script cannot set the reporter |
| 22:32 | <annevk> | does it not cc the original reporter? |
| 22:32 | <annevk> | also, you want to ask Hixie, he wrote the scripts |
| 22:38 | <david_carlisle> | annevk: apparently not:-) |
| 22:40 | <david_carlisle> | OK I thought I saw somewhere they were Mike's scripts, I may push back on the wontfix (of 17798) in which case I'd be contacting Hixie anyway (or I may not bother, too late to decide tonight) |