- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:01:46 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
- Cc: W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>, You agreed to what?!?! <team-webplatform@w3.org>
+ team-webplatform@w3.org On 18/08/2016 14:43, Janina Sajka wrote: > I think it would be very helpful to have a simple sentence or two about > how this decision changes things from HTML 5.0. Frankly, given the > history of longdesc, APA should arguably be consulted before any changes > are put in place. I should have let APA know this discussion was taking place. With several accessibility people involved from the outset, I didn't mention it formally. Sorry for that. [...] > So, the threshold question of the moment -- Is this CfC Decision a > change? Or status quo? Frankly, I can't tell from a quick read of the > attached, so thanks for your wisdom on this. When we referenced longdesc in HTML5.1 we did so without realising that the definition of an extension or "applicable specification" as a non-conforming HTML document was something introduced in HTML5 [1], and referenced in Plan 2014 [2]. It also seems that the PFWG resolved to keep the Image Description extension as a stand-alone document, as opposed to having it folded into HTML. Following an (unminuted) comment made on the APA call yesterday, I tracked down the PF resolution [3], following a minuted discussion of the proposal from the HTML A11y TF [4]. Hope this helps. Léonie. [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#infrastructure [2] https://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Jan/0079.html [4] -- @LeonieWatson think.uk Carpe diem
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2016 16:02:56 UTC