- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:24:51 -0400
- To: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- CC: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 10/14/2014 01:11 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:48:22 -0400 > Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > >> Normally the way things like these are handled is that the status >> section is updated with a warning and a link to the relevant bugs, and >> the heartbeat is published. >> >> Two such bugs are linked in the previous heartbeat: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-alt-techniques-20121025/ >> >> Is there any reason why such couldn't be done in this case? > > Minuimum for me would be to link to > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26868 > at the two examples (caption and complex image description) that should at least mention longdesc. Absolutely. > Since we had consensus on publishing longdesc I don't see how we could have consensus on a document that could be taken as implying (although it doesn't say) that one shouldn't use longdesc. A list of open issues/bugs is an appropriate way to capture the current status. > The TF hadn't reviewed the document, I think, in light of longdesc moving forward. > > There are some other technical issues with it, but those don't (in my view) need to be resolved before a heartbeat can be published, and there are bugs on the ones I know about. > > It would be helpful to wait until the Director's Decision was published on longdesc before putting this document out, even as a heartbeat, but that seems to be taking much longer than expected, and is a political rather than a technical request. Generally, Working Groups don't wait until all technical issues are resolved until publishing a heartbeat. > Hope this is clearer. > > Liam - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 17:25:44 UTC