Re: Split Issue 30?

On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Leif,
> 
>> Well, OK, to the Chairs, then unique use cases for
>> @longdesc seems to be crucial.
> 
> I reject the notion that providing unique use cases that *only*
> longdesc can fulfill is to be the deciding factor for including
> longdesc in the language.
> 
> If I misunderstood the original decision and this is the intent and
> will be the determining factor, perhaps a Formal Objection should have
> been made after the first decision on that basis instead of the
> reopen.

That was indeed the original basis for the decision. While I do not want to prejudge the reopened issue before it goes to survey, I expect there are at least two paths to making a strong case for longdesc:

(1) Show that some valid use cases can *only* be fulfilled by longdesc.
(2) Show that for some valid use cases, longdesc has significant benefits over other possible solutions, even if it is not the only solution; these claimed benefits would then be weighed against the claimed harmful effects of longdesc.

Regards,
Maciej