- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:53:20 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Aurelien Levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Sam Ruby, Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:17:08 -0400: > Put in simpler terms, the chairs read of the sentiment of the working > group is that "It don't work" is the basis for a stronger objection > than "It says so right here". That's true whether the original > statement came from ECMA, the IETF, or even here in the W3C. What didn't work was that HTML4 validators did not perform any URI conformance checking - and very little attribute value checking at all. > - - - > > Again, just so it isn't crystal clear: I am not saying that longdesc > doesn't work or that WCAG doesn't matter. I am saying that we asked > for arguments and counter arguments, and evaluated the input that we > were provided. I must agree that several supporters of longdesc should consider whether they have are pursuing the right strategy. To argue for longdesc on a temporary basis is not convincing strategy. > Paths forward from this point (as listed in the decision itself): > > * use cases that specifically require longdesc, What is wrong with "semantic link to a supplementary description"? Or as HTML4 puts it: "link to long description (complements alt)" What more is needed? I am sorry to have to repeat, but none of the "alternatives" (except <a rel="longdesc" href=* >) provides this. > * evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that that > growth is expected to continue, or Turn on URI conformance checking - and we will se the correct use increase. This a chicken and egg argument. > * widespread interoperable implementation. The decision document did not document lack of interoperable implementations. > Additionally, there is the path forward of a Formal Objection. I am sorry to say it, but given the quality of the decision document, I hope that we do not need to use such big canons. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 00:53:59 UTC