W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-30 longdesc

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:46:00 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A6B287F8-192D-47C8-84A1-3289972E69BE@gbiv.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
On Aug 12, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:

> 
> Le 12 août 2010 à 02:41, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
>> (2) New information that could lead to the issue being reopened.
> 
> "New information" is too vague. Given the strong opinion that some HTML WG Members have on hard data, I would encourage the proponent of longdesc attribute to collect these data.
> 
> * How many and which authoring tools give a UI for editing longdesc?

All of them that I looked at this evening ...

   Adobe Dreamweaver and GoLive
   Microsoft Expression, System.Web.UI, ASP.NET, Visual Studio
   FCKeditor (http://docs.cksource.com/FCKeditor_2.x/Users_Guide/Common_Tasks/Inserting_Images)

I could continue listing them but I'd rather sleep.  I have yet to
find a serious HTML editing product that did not support it.
All of the above currently recommend using it (and use it correctly).

> * How many and which CMSes give a UI for editing longdesc?

Day CQ5 uses the FCKeditor as one interface, but of course the platform
is completely extensible.  Drupal is similar (http://drupal.org/node/255599).
Somebody could go through the list of web-based CMSs (something like 500 of
them the last time I looked), but I don't know of any CMS that doesn't
include edit fields for every defined attribute in HTML4.  That's easy.

> * How many and which search engines use and/or associate longdesc to the original document it has been linked from?

I don't care -- it has nothing to do with the language.

> * How many and which assistive technologies are using longdesc (full browser, OS level, plugin, etc.)?

That is a much better question, but will leave it to an AT expert to answer.

> This information would create raw materials helping the discussion.

I'll be surprised if it makes any difference.  Facts don't seem to matter.
I don't personally have anything against deprecating longdesc, aside from
the fact that the arguments for doing so still don't overcome the original
reason for defining it (similar to my objections for removing summary).
However, the proper way to deprecate a feature is to define it as part of
the language and warn against its future use.

....Roy
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 07:46:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 August 2010 07:46:33 GMT