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

Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:24:17 -0700
Cc: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-id: <8C42F5A8-031B-4695-A5A4-E6896EAAB2C1@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Sep 23, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 09/23/2012 04:16 PM, Geoff Freed wrote:
>> Just for the record, I think that @longdesc *should* be improved.  If
>> the name remains the same, fine.  If it changes or is moved to ARIA,
>> fine.  I just don't want it to go away before that new Thing is
>> available.
> I must say that that's an eminently reasonable position to take.
> Geoff: I gather that James hasn't convinced you that iframe is a superior solution to address the challenges you face.
> James: and I gather that Geoff hasn't convinced you to advocate within Apple to natively implement support for longdesc.

I agree that Geoff's position is reasonable. I am also not opposed to advocating for ways of implementing longer descriptive alternatives, whether or not it uses @longdesc. Geoff's language is in line with requests I have heard from publishers; that they want the ability to make their content accessible, regardless of the technical implementation specific. That is clearly a goal we all share, as is the main reason we've devoted more effort to allowing content (such as SVG, MathML, Canvas, etc.) to be made accessible across the board, rather than focusing effort on a technique that ultimately we expect to be obsolete. 

I acknowledge the need for extending a transitional period while the rest of these technologies become more widely supported.

> And while I identified both of you as individuals, I note that neither of you are alone in your positions on this matter.
> Again I ask: is there any chance that we can get a consensus spec out of
> this: one that doesn't attempt to portray publishing software that
> produces markup including longdesc as non-conforming; nor does it
> attempt to portray user agent software that doesn't natively implement
> longdesc as non-conforming?

That sounds like a good compromise.

> Geoff: if such an extension specification were written, could you live
> with that for now?
> James: same question.


Received on Sunday, 23 September 2012 21:25:02 UTC

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