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

RE: My case for the obsoletion of longdesc (Was: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update)

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:29:41 -0700
To: "'James Craig'" <jcraig@apple.com>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014801cd96b6$452b91f0$cf82b5d0$@ca>
James Craig wrote:
> 
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > If longdesc is put back in the spec i would consider it
> > appropriate to have a warning about its use. I would consider it  a
> > feature at risk CR wise unless its interoperable support in browsers
> > is improved.
> 
> I think we're in agreement then.
> 

As I have previously noted, the existing support for @longdesc TODAY meets
the CR exit criteria as written:

	"For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation,
there must be at least two independent, interoperable implementations of
each feature. Each feature may be implemented by a different set of
products, there is no requirement that all features be implemented by a
single product."
(where products is defined as "Web browsers and other interactive user
agents").
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0294.html 


* Opera
* iCab
* IE (6,7,8,9) + JAWs
* Firefox (all versions) + JAWs
* IE (6,7,8,9) + WindowEyes
* IE (6,7,8,9) + SuperNova/HAL
(I have not test Firefox with either of those 2 Screen readers: they may or
may not meet the success criteria)

That's 6, the requirement is for 2. (Even without the addition of JAWs, we
have 2 native implementations based on different code stacks, with iCab
being based upon WebKit, and Opera based upon Presto).

JF
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 22:30:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 22:30:28 GMT