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

Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 07:58:30 -0500
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Cc: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-ID: <OF57FB7AD1.F9104C8D-ON86257A83.0046AD95-86257A83.0047528E@us.ibm.com>


Rich Schwerdtfeger

James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote on 09/23/2012 04:24:17 PM:

> From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
> To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>,
> Cc: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
> Date: 09/23/2012 04:25 PM
> Subject: Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update
>
> 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.
>
I also support this compromise. This gives us the opportunity to focus our
efforts on producing a better, working, solution that can work across
technologies, while not breaking what is there.

> > Geoff: if such an extension specification were written, could you live
> > with that for now?
> >
> > James: same question.
>
> Yes.
>
I could also live with this for now. Again, I prefer we get to work on a
better alternative in ARIA with the browser vendors. I am confident that we
can do that.

> Thanks,
> James
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 12:59:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 September 2012 12:59:17 GMT