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

Water under the bridge

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:46:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvef3jewdgf+dfa1YUpPkews-==P__9=Wnqg3SATAvhiFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Hi Sam,

My words are true. I make no apology in expressing consequences of
other proposals.

> Nor is disparaging others arguments as hollow, specious, and a waste
> of time.

Disagreeing with ideas is common practice here.

You made no intervention when David Singer disparaged longdesc with
the "broken bicycle" analogy. longdesc is NOT broken.

Anyway that is water under the bridge and we are ready for the longdesc survey.

Best Regards,
Laura
--
Laura L. Carlson

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 08:39 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>
>> Hi James, Cynthia, David, and Ian,
>>
>> Sam wrote to Leif in another thread:
>>
>>> And (recognizing that I do NOT work for a
>>> browser vendor), I do believe that a solution for these problems can be
>>> specified in a matter of months and demonstrably conforming public
>>> implementations could be produced in a matter of months after that.
>>>
>>> As to whether or not that attribute should be spelled "longdesc"
>>
>>
>> One question to our task force browser reps: would you implement a
>> change proposal with the exact same verbiage as the instatelongdesc
>> proposal [1] if the HTML5 attribute name @longdesc was changed to
>> @desc or @describedat something similar [2]? Does the name make a
>> difference to your company implementing it?
>
>
> I will first note that you are not likely to get a straight answer to the
> first question -- pre-announcing support for features before they are
> implemented is rarely a successful strategy.
>
> I will then note that bookending this otherwise reasonable requests with
> emails using the words "unacceptable"[4] and "Formally Object"[5] are not
> conducive to getting the level of participation we need here.
>
> Nor is disparaging others arguments as hollow, specious, and a waste of
> time[6].
>
> I will close this email by noting that David Bolter previously participated
> in this discussion[7], and perhaps the points that he made at that time
> should be discussed.
>
> You might be pleased to see that he seems to agree with you that this should
> not be implemented in ARIA.
>
>
>> Best Regards,
>> Laura
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10455
>> Related Ref "New HTML Attribute":
>> [3] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/constriants/newattribute.html
>
>
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0262.html
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0337.html
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0333.html
> [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0405.html
>



-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 14:46:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 14:46:35 GMT