Editorials to 'audio has alternative' rules

[daniel-montalvo]

Updates to rule and test cases descriptions to 'audio has alternative' rules

Closes issue(s):

• closes #XXX (ADD ISSUE NUMBER HERE)

Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 1 week Call for Review

---

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

• Make sure you're request
  ing to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).
• Make sure you do not remove the "How to Review and Approve" section in your pull request description

After creating PR:

• Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
• Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
• Link the PR to any issue it solves. This will be done automatically by referencing the issue at the top of this comment in the indicated place.
• Optionally request feedback from anyone in particular by assigning them as "Reviewers".

When merging a PR:

• Close any issue that the PR resolves. This will happen automatically upon merging if the PR was correctly linked to the issue, e.g. by referencing the issue at the top of this comment.

How to Review And Approve

• Go to the “Files changed” tab
• Here you will have the option to leave comments on different lines.
• Once the review is completed, find the “Review changes” button in the top right, select “Approve” (if you are really confident in the rule) or "Request changes" and click “Submit review”.
• Make sure to also review the proposed Call for Review period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

[bruce-usab]

Looks good! Just asking though, Is audio element (as opposed to audio content or just audio) the best term to be using?

I realize that element is not a change and is the previous phrasing used. I just have some concern for the overlap of the word/concept with other W3C specs.

[Jym77]

@bruce-usab

Looks good! Just asking though, Is audio element (as opposed to audio content or just audio) the best term to be using?

"audio element" is the correct term to use to talk about the HTML element whose name is "audio" (i.e. the element created by the <audio> tag). "Audio content" would be the sound that is produced when this element is rendered on a web page. But "audio content" could be produced by other elements than audio (e.g., a video element, or an object element may have "audio content"). This rule specifically checks something about audio elements, not about other kind of "audio content".

We sort of need that level of precision to make sure the rule (and especially the Applicability) is unambiguous and objective. "audio element" has a precise definition (audio element in HTML specs) while "audio content" would need one (and we would need to make sure that the definition doesn't grab too much or too little).

[bruce-usab]

@Jym77 — thanks for that clarification. As before, I am of the opinion that this PR is fine.

I had not understood these rules to be only for the HTML5 audio element, so that is important context for me. Thanks again for your time! I will lean on my colleague @kengdoj to get me more up to speed.