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: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:49:42 +0200
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: 'James Craig' <jcraig@apple.com>, 'Steve Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120920004942545684.0b38d619@xn--mlform-iua.no>
John Foliot, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:29:41 -0700:
> James Craig wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Steve Faulkner 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:
    [ ... ]
> - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0294.html 

[Opera, iCab, Firefox+JAWs, IE+JAWs/WindowEyes/SuperNova/HAL]

> 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).

We should probably not mix CR criteria and validation. To take an 
example: Imagine that only two browsers supported the <details> 
element, for instance, then a validator warning might be due.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 22:50:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 22:50:17 GMT