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

Re: Alternate proposal for ISSUE-30 longdesc

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:42:51 +0100
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "HTMLwg WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u8jfdpgpwxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:30:04 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
wrote:

>
> Consolidating some replies...
>
> On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:12 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:44:37 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
>> <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning

>> Unlike Hixie's proposal, I think that this proposal can turn into
>> something I can support.
>
> Do you think changes are needed for you to feel comfortable supporting
> it?

Fundamentally it depends what the warning *says*

> I suspect it's better to encourage authors to use aria-
> describedby="foo" instead of longdesc="#foo".

Works for Me

>>>> 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.
>
> I think Jonas's point was that they are not necessarily right.
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>>>
>>> bgcolor was deprecated in HTML4.01, "Deprecated" being the closest
>>> status HTML4.01 had to HTML5's "Obsolete but conforming". So my
>>> proposal would actually treat longdesc the exact same way ...

Like Sam, I think it makes sense to revisit the terminology. I don't see  
any real value in the change, and it makes life a bit more confusing for  
people who have studied this stuff for a while. But I don't think that is  
specific to this issue and I think it is a generic editorial issue and  
should be dealt with as such.

However, that part of the proposal, if we have a solution that offers the  
same possibilities (for both in-page and external links) as longdesc,  
makes sense.

...
>>> longdesc had a beneficial intent, even if the outcome was often poor
>>> due to the design details in the feature.

(Or some other reason, which I would argue is the case if I thought the  
argument was worth having)

>>> So it's possible someone may be using img@longdesc well...
>>
>> The argument brought forward in the change proposal was "sites are
>> using it"....

> The argument I am trying to make, but which I perhaps phrased poorly:
> Some sites  may be using this attribute for a valid purpose and in a
> valid way. Thus, we should transition them more gently to a better
> solution.

agreed.

...

Cheers

Chaals


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 16:43:31 GMT

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