- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:33:29 -0700
- To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "'HTMLAccessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > Since a lot of the content in existance for @longdesc is > non-conformant anyway, I don't understand that argument. I personally will not get dragged down that rat-hole. Suffice to say I disagree with the assessment you seem to be believing in, and outright reject that premise of the Hixie/Pilgrim "Longdesc Lottery" slander. Without public data & proof it holds little credence for me. Irrespective of those assertions, the amount of legacy content from a decade ago that is non-conformant is a non-factor - we have valid examples of more current content that is properly authored and current on the web today. We also have legacy user-agent support, and legacy authoring tool support, which allows authors to create conformant @longdesc today. See: http://john.foliot.ca/wysiwyg_longdesc/ (May, 2011) FUD has no place in this discussion. > > The development that I'm suggesting does not necessarily imply tossing > out @longdesc, so I don't understand that argument either. <snip> > Learning from existing @longdesc experience is certainly good. > We are not far apart then. JF
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 05:34:00 UTC