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

Re: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:19:47 -0500
Message-Id: <E1S6D6d-0007FT-Ny@maggie.w3.org>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Leif,

At 02:53 AM 3/10/2012 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>Janina Sajka, Fri, 9 Mar 2012 17:38:32 -0600:
> > Laura has reminded me what the problem is with "obsolete but conforming"
> > for longdesc.
> >
> > In my mind I think in terms of "deprecated," as commonly used in
> > standards development. However, if we need to specify the replacement in
> > order to apply "obsolete but conforming," we're clearly not there yet as
> > there's no ARIA-DescribedAt to point to, and will not be for some time
> > still.
>
>But that doesn't change the fact that you are in favor of conformance
>of 'the HTML attribute' because it is needed in order to bridge the gap
>from now and until 'an ARIA attribute' is ready.
>
>Hence, I hope that PF will provide us with at least a hint of when work
>on 'the feature' as 'an ARIA attribute' will start, so that we, e.g. in
>the poll [if it can't be added to the CP], can offer answers to Sam's
>questions[1], and thus argue as credible as possible for why the life
>of 'the HTML attribute' should be extended.

The PFWG and ARIA Task Force have just come off of a heavy set of 
meetings with a full agenda. I don't know if they worked on a 
timeline but I believe they may have done some brainstorming on 
design. I think Janina has an update queued up to send to the x-tech 
list after a server issue gets sorted out.

As for change proposals, I encourage people to request that the 
TF-supported longdesc change proposal gets a fair hearing in the HTML 
WG as it has been pending for too long, and a lot of information has 
been compiled in one place there that may be useful for people's 
understanding of the issues, so that we can spend less time recycling 
discussions and more on moving solutions ahead.

In the meantime, perhaps we can retire this subject line? I don't 
think it represents where we've gotten to in this discussion.

Thanks and best,

- Judy

>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0182
>--
>Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2012 03:36:34 UTC

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