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

Re: How to obsolete @longdesc

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:40:23 -0400
Message-ID: <5059E767.2090507@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 09/19/2012 11:32 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Leif,
>
> Obsoleting longdesc in any way is not under consideration.

That is not a factual statement.  It may not be something that you 
personally would be willing to consider.  It may not be something that 
actually happens.  But it is a factual statement that some people are 
not only considering that, but actively proposing to obsolete longdesc.

> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby

> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>> Laura Carlson, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:19:53 -0500:
>>> Hi Leif,
>>>
>>>> Thank you for pointing to David's message. Clearly, name change might
>>>> be a better idea than we have admitted.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, a logical 'deal' to consider
>>>
>>> No 'deal' is in consideration. This is an inquiry only.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't want to disturb the inquiry so I change the topic so you
>> don't feel you need to stand for my words.
>>
>> The argument has been mad, in this recent discussion, that HTML5 has no
>> means for deprecation of features. In the first longdesc poll, there
>> were no alternatives to replace it with and thus, true deprecation was
>> not possible. But if an alternative emerged, then HTML5 has some
>> mechanisms for making features obsolete but conforming, as pointed out
>> with in my message with the unlucky word 'deal'.[1]
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/20120919165642623450.594a22b3@xn--mlform-iua.no
>>
>> Leif Halvard Silli
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 15:40:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 15:40:55 GMT