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

Re: Revert Request

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:28:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4F27EC85.2070303@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 01/30/2012 11:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hi Silvia,
>>
>> The change directly implements half of Jonas' longdesc proposal.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Laura
>
> That seems like a terrible reason to request a change to be reverted.
> Instead we should look like if the change was a good one. I.e. is it
> good for the web and is it good for accessibility.
>
> To me the answer is a clear "yes" on both. Also note that this change
> is almost completely orthogonal to the longdesc debate as I will show
> below.

Jonas, I encourage you to update your change proposal to include all of 
the relevant information, and in particular to address the feedback below:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0182.html

While updating the proposal is entirely optional, I will suggest that if 
you do not chose to update the proposal based on this feedback it is 
unlikely that your proposal will be the one selected.  In particular, 
the lack of use cases is particularly problematic.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 13:29:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:43 GMT