- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:41:48 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Leif, I make no signals. I asked a question. > You understand that is a quite confusing signal to ask the vendors > about a new name, then. > > Leif H Silli > > Laura Carlson, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:32:24 -0500: >> Hi Leif, >> >> Obsoleting longdesc in any way is not under consideration. >> >> Best Regards, >> Laura >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Laura L. Carlson >> -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 15:42:20 UTC