- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:36:54 +0000
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, html4all <list@html4all.org>, w3c-wai-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
On 14/03/2011 17:12, Laura Carlson wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > On March 10, 2011, Steve wrote [1]: > >> If longdesc is included in HTML5 but fails to be specced/implemented >> to be useful and robust then it will be a failure. > > On March 13, 2011, Paul wrote [2]: > >> At the March 3 A11Y TF meeting I encouraged TF participants to >> work with WG members that were originally on the prevailing >> side of ISSUE-30 to see if it might be possible to get consensus >> within the WG even before May. The Chairs will certainly NOT >> stand in opposition to a clear sense of consensus on any issue >> at any time. > > I have been thinking about what Steve and Paul said. > > So how could longdesc be specified to make it more useful and more > robust and encourage more implementation? FWIW, before *any* further solution is engineered @longdesc should be conforming and valid and a first class citizen in HTML 5. My 2 cents Josh
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 16:41:06 UTC