Tim Bray wrote:
Actually, the argument was that if the content is either non-textual or remote, a summary is beneficial to accessibility. I agree that many people made this argument, sufficient in the co-chairs' minds to establish rough consensus.
I understand the argument if the content is non-textual, sort of. For example, the thoroughly-vetted SVG format has no required metadata fields. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have an accessibility expert review the document and identify requirements that ensure accessibility. I asked back at the time. No one answered, but they did mention "screwing blind people" or something like that. Until it is reviewed, I consider those requirements a bug.
A flurry of Paces has been filed. That's good. In my opinion, none of them are very material to the kind of content we're seeking from the broader IETF community...
Fully agree.
Once that has launched, we'll figure out an orderly way to set up a discussion on the Paces from the last week.
OK.
Robert Sayre
