W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: closing issue-30 longdesc in favor of aria-describedby [was: Consolidated issues ...]

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:51:02 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0908121051p85fc0d2l6a9ef7392cf80fd3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Maciej wrote [1]:
> Based on what Henri says[2], I instead suggest closing ISSUE-30, (longdesc)
> unless someone objects.

Dan wrote [3]:
> Works for me.

Has Chaals withdrawn the longdesc issue that he originally[4] raised [5]?

Has aria-describedby been incorporated into HTML5 as WAI CG recommended [6]?

That doesn't seem to be the case as Ian wrote [6]:
<Hixie> well then aria won't make LC
<Hixie> we can always do it after LC

Shelley wrote [8]:
> Until ARIA is, in fact, integrated, I would suggest leaving this item in.

Leif wrote [9]:
> Hence I suggest not closing ISSUE-30 at this moment.

If aria-describedby has not been incorporated as WAI CG recommended,
no functional replacement exists for longdesc, then I agree with
Shelley and Leif. The issue should not be closed [5].

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0577.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0579.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0600.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0065.html

[5] Issue Definitions:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/#head-edc2d90c3b34d500456e7e167ab59ce3a43c7ffc
> RAISED = A working group member suggests this is worth a WG
> discussion and potentially a decision, but to date no concrete
> proposal has been created that enjoys a consensus of at least one.
>
> OPEN = At least one concrete proposal has been made resolving this
> issue, but one on which consensus has either not been evaluated, or
> has not yet been reached; a working group member is assigned an
> ACTION to follow up (similar to ASSIGNED).
>
> PENDINGREVIEW = An Editor has reviewed arguments and edited spec to
> taste, or the WG chairs have evaluated the level of consensus and
> identified one or more proposals that would resolve the issue. In the
> case where multiple proposals are identified, the Editors may make
> the determination as to which one to incorporate.
>
> POSTPONED = The WG has decided the issue will not be addressed at
> this time due to engineering constraints, cost-effectiveness, or the
> inability of the issue to be address in the time defined by our
> charter. To be investigated during the next chartering period.
>
> CLOSED = The chairs believe either the WG has resolved the issue (via
> spec editing) or the issue has been withdrawn. Only the chairs should
> move issues to 'closed'. Typically moving issues from PENDINGREVIEW
> to CLOSED will involve review in the weekly telecon.

[6] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
[7] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090811#l-285
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0586.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0584.html

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 17:51:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC