- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:09:28 +1000
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Silvia, > > The incorrect usage argument is hollow. Many web pages have incorrect > usage i.e., duplicate id values when they should be unique on a page. > Arguing that some authors use longdesc ineffectively is no more > sensible than arguing that we must obsolete the id attribute because > some authors or spec writers [1] get it wrong. The argument is > specious and a waste of time. > > Incorrect usage is not the fault of a mechanism. Almost every > attribute and element is incorrectly coded or applied in ways not > intended. That does not mean the feature is useless and should be > killed. It only means specification, education, or tools may need > improvement. I understand that authors make mistakes. I also understand that attributes and elements evolve and that we are trying to improve the Web by clarifying the spec text on such features that were previously underspecified. But it is worrying when you grab a semi-random set of popular Web pages and there is not a single correct use of @longdesc in it. I really did not expect that. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 13:10:19 UTC