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

Re: Alternate proposal for ISSUE-30 longdesc

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:19:03 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1002220619s14b49583m86fdd9f1fd957615@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Charles McCathieNevile
<chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>>> The second argument in the change proposal is:
>>>
>>> "Some laws, regulations and organizational policies may refer to
>>> longdesc by name."
>>>
>>> Using this as argument for keeping any feature seems very sad to me.
>>> The idealist in me strongly prefers to add accessibility features
>>> based on what helps people with accessibility needs, rather than what
>>> local laws say.
>
> It is not axiomatic that laws, regulations and organisational policies are
> wrong. Many things done for accessibility begin as one of those things.

No one has claimed anything otherwise (sorry to call you out, but you
are making a straw man argument).

However my reading of the current change proposal from Maciej is that
the *only* argument for making it conforming is that there are laws
requiring its use.

If the attribute does indeed have technical merits, and that there
happen to be laws for a good reason, then the attribute should be able
to stand on its own technical merits.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 14:19:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT