W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Split Issue 30? (was: Chair review of "Keep Longdesc Deprecated" Change Proposal)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:11:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei9DUWpw+474bBWczeJ9HE4s1_JYDOsWA9NbzGE23DN60A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 03:37 PM, Matthew Turvey wrote:
>> On 2 February 2012 07:07, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc>  wrote:
>> [crop]
>>>> If anybody plans on either revising any of the current proposals or to
>>>> submit a new proposal based on this feedback, please let us know so that we
>>>> can plan accordingly.
>>> I won't have time to make these changes unfortunately.
>>> I did add a section that rebuts some of the claims that has been made
>>> in other change proposals and on this list.
>>> If someone wants to take the time to update my change proposal as
>>> requested above that would be appreciated.
>> Hi Jonas,
>> I could update the change proposal as required, and ping you for a
>> quick check when done?
>> Maciej, would end of Feb be ok?
>> If any other HTMLWG members, or PFWG members working on ARIA stuff,
>> want to contribute to this change proposal too that would be great.
> Surveys work best when there are exactly two options to chose from.  In this
> case, there are currently three proposals, with two of them significantly
> overlapping.  It would therefore be easier if we could split this into
> multiple issues.
> The idea would be to first proceed to a survey on the following two
> proposals:
>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescZeroEdit
> During that time, a change proposal can be worked on to cover the additional
> changes proposed by Jonas's current proposal.  That proposal will not need
> to restate the arguments made in LongdescZeroEdit.
> If this is something that the WG can agree to, then end of month would be
> fine for such a (reduced scope) Change Proposal.

I agree we have two somewhat independent issues:

1. Should ARIA attributes be allowed to point to @hidden elements.
2. Should @longdesc be marked as obsolete.

However it seems like issue 2 depends on issue 1. I.e. the case for
marking longdesc as obsolete is stronger if ARIA is allowed to point
to hidden elements.

Would it be possible to ensure that we decide on 1 before we poll on 2?

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:12:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:20 UTC