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

Re: Long descriptions spec - a basic idea

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:41:11 -0400
Message-ID: <505CA6B7.3040300@intertwingly.net>
To: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 09/21/2012 01:23 PM, Leif H Silli wrote:
> To avoid that confusion, I suggest to replace "ghetto" with "community".
> The RDFa + HTML spec is defined by the RDFa community. As our spec would
> be defined by the A11Y community.

For what it is worth, a number of members of W3C Management have talked 
in terms of an "Open Web Platform Family" of specifications.  ARIA, SVG, 
and MathML are examples of full peers -- ones that can be implemented 
independent of HTML yet depending on your target audience your 
implementation of the open web platform is not quite as complete as 
others if you chose not to implement them.

I'll note that HTML+RDFa 1.1 and HTML Microdata are not quite peers in 
the same sense.

Whether this TF decides to pursue one or both of a "HTML longdesc" or a 
"Open Web Platform Long Description" specification is entirely up to 
this TF.

At the same time, we can discuss updating the introduction to the HTML5 
specification to indicate that it is not meant as an end-point, but 
rather as a part of the greater Open Web Platform Family.

> Leif

- Sam Ruby

> ------- Opprinnelig melding -------
>> Fra: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
>> Til: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no, rubys@intertwingly.net
>> Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, fielding@gbiv.com
>> Sendt: 21/9/'12,  18:16
>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> If Microdata and HTML+RDFa are ghetto specs, then I agree that ghetto
>>> specs can work fine.
>> The current proposed path has warranted some serious deliberation and
>> discussion, which is happening now.
>> Culturally, I would caution that we collectively be very careful about
>> our use of terms such as "ghetto" with regard to accessibility and
>> People With Disabilities, and further I have some significant concerns
>> about the expression of any extension specification to HTML that has
>> any kind of appearance of marginalization.
>> Put another way, both the RDFa spec and the MathML spec are (if I am
>> to understand the thrust of the larger idea) extensions to HTML5.  Yet
>> we do not highlight the inclusion of MathML to the spec in the same
>> way that we do RDFa. The absolutely last thing we need is to have is
>> even an internal notion of HTML+a11y (in the same way that we have
>> HTML+RDFa), and so I would suggest that one way we can avoid this is
>> to be extremely careful in our choice of words: casual observers may
>> be lead to think something that is not intended or true.
>> Cheers!
>> JF
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 17:41:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:31 UTC