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

Re: the market hasn't spoken - it hasn't bothered to listened [was Re: fear of "invisible metadata"]

From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:02:25 -0400
Message-ID: <46809DE1.1060604@vectoreal.com>
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: wai-xtech-request@w3.org, public-html@w3.org

Hey-

Let's step back a second.  The HTML 5.0 spec is a work in progress.  The 
methodology seems to be to carefully consider the implications of each 
thing that is put in, to best integrate it into the whole.

Just because @longdesc is not currently in the spec doesn't mean it 
won't be.  The HTML 5.0 spec will not get out of Last Call if it doesn't 
have *at least* as good a set of accessibility features as HTML4, and 
I'm sure that everyone here (browser vendors included) are approaching 
the issue with good will.

I think we will progress most effectively if we stick to technical 
arguments for (or against) features, rather than jump to conclusions.

Regards-
-Doug

William Loughborough wrote:
 >
 > Monika Trebo wrote:
 > Again, as long as we don't have something better than longdesc we should
 > keep it in.
 >
 > If the HTML5 WG (or whatever it's called) actually deprecated longdesc
 > they should be drummed out of the regiment - that would be an
 > unconscionable thing to do. Whatever arcane reasoning went into that
 > decision was without merit and attempts to hide it in "process" nonsense
 > is simply not acceptable.
 >
 > Although the most important reason for longdesc is the accessibility
 > "market", there will develop other uses for it once the foxes have been
 > driven out of the hen house.
 >
 > It wasn't broke and really doesn't need much (if any) fixing.
 >
 > Does Sir Tim really know they deprecated longdesc?
 >
 > Love.
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 05:02:37 UTC

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