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

Re: Split Issue 30?

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:43:53 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvd3SjmQvGJ0XV=PPBVvhf7ZiKabrHzRgFq_XiyL8SBeYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Hi Maciej,

> That was indeed the original basis for the decision.

Then the original basis for the decision was wrong.

> 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.

I have submitted both number one and number two to you. Plus much,
much more has been supplied regarding numerous aspects of the issue.
All rationale that I have is on the table. *ALL* of the submitted
rationale deserves be considered in the new decision and not ignored
in adjudication.

If an issue is open, the previous judgment will not set limitations on
what will be considered in the new decision. Arguments and rationale
that are offered would be judged afresh and irrespective of what
arguments were given the first time around. To do otherwise would
indeed be to prejudge the issue.

Best Regards,
Laura
--
Laura L. Carlson

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>



-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 12:44:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:44 GMT