W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

addition or subtrraction? [was Re: dropping longdesc attribute]

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:31:02 -0400
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>
Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070625202345.M52576@hicom.net>

scott lewis wrote, quote:
That said, when a change is requested the burden of proof falls on  
the requester. And that swings both ways: someone wanting to add  
<longdesc> into the spec faces the same burden of proof as someone  
wanting to take <image>'s @alt out of the spec.
unquote

excuse me, but longdesc isn't being proposed as an addition to HTML5;
it exists in the only NORMATIVE spec, HTML4x, so the burden of proof 
that it isn't necessary falls upon those who made the initial decision 
to deprecate it...

restoring features isn't adding features; this is why i STILL believe 
that starting with HTML5 as our working draft is WRONG;  each change 
from HTML4x to HTML5, therefore, MUST be justified; HTML4x remains 
the baseline from which we should be working; each addition, 
deprecation, change or deletions should be introduced to the HTML WG 
individually, and not adopted wholesale;  i appreciate the work and 
effort that went into HTML5, but i am unwilling to accept it in toto, 
part and parcel, especially when it has deprecated so much of the 
accessibility enhancements built-into HTML4x

i still hold to the opinion that our development path should start with 
HTML 4.01, its corrections and errata, and THEN introduce each issue 
from the HTML5 draft as INDIVIDUAL issues.  i am EXTREMELY 
uncomfortable in being forced to choose a draft, in toto, as our basic 
working draft slash foundational document, because too many of 
HTML4x's babies are being flushed down the drain with the bathwater 
of those issues which need to be addressed more fully, such as the 
integration of XForms work into HTML markup, and fixing that which 
is actually broken, by examining each piece individually; comparing 
and contrasting HTML4x against HTML5 is a good, constructive 
effort, but to adopt HTML5 and then be told that specific items for 
specific use cases and re-use cases which have been stripped from
HTML4x need to be justified in order to be retained or restored to 
the proposed HTML5 working draft is a slap in the face of those who 
worked extremely hard to ensure that HTML4x addressed accessibility
issues, and an even harder blow to the guts of the users who actually 
benefit from them...

gregory.

PS: my detailed development path post, quote:
   * Reasons Why HTML 4.01 Strict Should Remain
     the HTML WG's Foundation Document
unquote

is archived at
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0652.html>

  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Let me save you from drowning," said the monkey as he placed the 
  fish into a tree.                                 -- Hindu proverb
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
                Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
      Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 20:31:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC