- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:23:29 -0600
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Hi Sam, > I dislike this characterization and the innuendo that people may be playing > tricks. I am sorry you dislike it. But re-ordering issues to strengthen one proposal over another is not equitable. > You indicate (correctly) that this discussion has been going on for several > years. Less than two years ago, a decision was rendered based on the > proposals that were provided. > > We subsequently reopened the discussion based on use cases that could have > been provided during that time, but for whatever reason was not. I did provide a use case on that poll but the chairs did not understand it. That use case is the basis of all of the use cases. > One way to proceed would be to split the issues and proceed as you > previously stated: namely to re-decide the deprecation issue without > considering the proposed change to how certain aria attributes are > interpreted. > > One possible outcome of that would be that we would need to once again > reopen the deprecation decision once that data has been gathered and > presented. longdesc is a useful attribute and should be included in the language. If that is not the outcome of all of this, the only recourse will be Formal Objection. > This is all about the merits of the arguments. Exactly. I have given you mine. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 16:23:51 UTC