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

Re: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 01:11:43 +0100
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120308011143790987.a46a02fe@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Silvia Pfeiffer, Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:45:55 +1100:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> This is why I am suggesting a Community Group. A CG 

>> My druthers would be to accept longdesc right away and call it obsolete
>> but conforming. That clearly signals that a replacement is expected
>> while providing needed functionality right away--the same it has been
>> available since html 4. As I said, this is my
>> preference.
> 
> I agree with this. Doing this and in parallel creating a CG on
> aria-describedat that takes on the requirements already collected in
> Epub would IMO provide the fastest way forward.

How do we get consensus for 'obsolete but conforming' + a CG for 
describedAT? Can this be expressed as a change proposal? And what if we 
do not get consensus for 'obsolete but conforming', do we then *not* 
create the community group?

Meanwhile, another option: What if HTML5 simply was silent on @longdesc 
... I mean: If we want to reuse @longdesc in ARIA - rather than 
creating a new @aria-describedAT, then HTML5 should not say that it is 
obsolete and should as well, not say that it is conforming - until it 
has been defined.
-- 
Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 00:12:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:27 UTC