On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:04:16 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: > Janina Sajka, Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:47:51 +0000: >> Leif Halvard Silli writes: > >>> Question: Is there a chance that "we could do" @aria-describedat *now*? >>> I am convinced that the chances for a amicable solution would increase >>> greatly if one could move from talk to action with regard to >>> @aria-describedat. >> >> You're asking the core question, imho. I wish we could simply say "yes" >> and be done with it, > >> Unfortunately, ARIA-DescribedAt doesn't exist anywhere except on our "To >> Do" list. > > So, the process is the reason we can't say 'use @aria-describedat' ... No. The problem is that some important projects are not implementing the functionality described. There are reasons for using longdesc as is: it's relatively well-known, it's relatively well described. There are reasons for preferring something that does the same with a different name: people get to say they were right about longdesc being broken as shown because we move to the new version, longdesc as currently specced in HTML4 doesn't apply as generally as required. The specification can be done in a tiny amount of time if that is needed. But without implementor commitment, it just isn't needed very urgently. Understanding the basics can be done just as well by implementing longdesc... If aria-describedat will get implemented, that is pretty much trumps for me. But if an ongoing discussion about it is an excuse to do nothing for a few extra weeks, I'd rather talk about something more productive. frustrated chaals -- Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.comReceived on Monday, 12 March 2012 18:30:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:56 GMT