On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, 3:10 PM Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote:
> On 12. Feb 2025, at 23:10, Alexis Rossi <alexisrossir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025, 1:38 PM Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote: > >> On 2025-02-12, at 22:30, Alexis Rossi <alexisrossir...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > prohibit > >> > >> There we are again. > >> > > I don't think I understand this comment. There's an accessible way to > include text in an SVG - why wouldn't we tell people to use that method? > > Of course we would. > But then there may be reasons why that doesn’t work in the specific > context, and there may also be better ways to provide the desired > accessibility. > > I think much of the 7996 desaster was that it tried to do with rules what > should have been guidelines [1] (which work when complemented by the > judgement Martin mentioned). > Oh I see, thank you for clarifying. Personally, I think the real problem with 7996 was that we put prohibitions like that into an RFC, which is difficult to change when you realize something isn't working out. The way this draft is written right now (I hope) would allow the RPC to set whatever rules seem reasonable to meet these policies, and then change them if that proves to not be the case. Hopefully, that is an easier process. Is there anything about the current draft that you think we should change to ensure that the RPC can be flexible when they have new information? > Grüße, Carsten > > [1]: https://youtu.be/k9ojK9Q_ARE?t=42 > >
-- rswg mailing list -- rswg@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rswg-le...@rfc-editor.org
