W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Process objections to FPWD

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:54:46 -0800
Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <A3615B6B-D202-4854-BEA9-2623277A5877@apple.com>
To: Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>
Issuing a validation warning may also provide a opportunity to refer content authors to a non-normative document detailing various long description alternatives to @longdesc.

On Dec 6, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another potential compromise solution for consensus would be to spec
> longdesc as "obsolete but conforming", i.e. effectively "deprecated".
> This option has previously received some support in the TF and HTMLWG:
> 
> In the HTML-A11Y-TF's original poll:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0180.html
> 
> Richard and Judy:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html
> 
> Janina:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2012Mar/0014.html
> 
> Steve:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2012Mar/0031.html
> 
> Cynthia
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0289.html
> 
> James:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Nov/0151.html

And Charles, quoted in the above message as saying, "Frankly, I'm all in favour of thatů"


> Me:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0254.html
> 
> Since the HTML5 spec already requires UAs to expose longdesc [1] this
> option would just result in validators issuing a warning instead of an
> error. I think this approach would provide better advice to authors
> and is more likely to gain consensus in the HTMLWG.
> 
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#dom-img-longdesc
> 
> -Matt
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 18:56:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 December 2012 18:56:11 GMT