W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [text] minutes: Text Alternatives Subgroup 2011-04-18 [draft]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:04:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4DADCEAF.1040305@intertwingly.net>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 04/19/2011 01:04 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Thanks for your email verifying that from the Chairs' perspective the
> rejected proposals did not communicate specific use cases and supply
> sufficient details.
>
>> The general thrust I gather from these minutes is "we need more time to
>> properly deprecate longdesc".  If that indeed is the case
>
> It is not the case. I guess you didn't read the last part of my
> message. It said:

By "these minutes" I was referring the minutes that matched the subject 
line.  Specifically:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0153.html

Examples from the minutes:

>   RS: the thing I had the biggest issue with is that I agree that
>   dumping @longdesc completely is a problem
>
>   we need a deprecation strategy
>
>   to give us a chance to get WCAG 2, EOWG to get ducks in order
>
>   but cold-turkey dumping is busted

>   JB: believes that not breaking backward compat is fundemental
>
>   if the decisions of the WG were being reviewed, and if the review
>   needed a basic set of reqs, shouldn't backward compat be there?

>   JS: backward compat should be a higher level concept

>   RS: the question I have is: do we want to say "reinstate longdesc"
>   or do we want to say we want a deprecation mechanism?

>   JB: so for example, should not breaking backward compat be a
>   requirment?
>
>   look at reqs, rather than implementation
>
>   useful to have a high-level reqs document
>
>   for review

>   RS: being pragmatic - the need exists whether we use longdesc or
>   other
>
>   if they are going to remove it, industry needs time to adapt
>
>   if we completely remove longdesc it is not attainable

>   RS: can cite gov legislation that if they remove something, we will
>   have a mjaor problem

I'll also note that in the original survey, Maciej proposed a warning:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning

The original result was that most of the people that objected to one of 
the other two proposals also objected to that proposal:

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-30-objection-poll/results#xwarning

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 18:04:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:19 UTC