W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Notice of impending Formal Objection to Issue 30 Decision (@longdesc)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:53:20 +0200
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Aurelien Levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100813025320592248.9495b745@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:17:08 -0400:
> Put in simpler terms, the chairs read of the sentiment of the working 
> group is that "It don't work" is the basis for a stronger objection 
> than "It says so right here".  That's true whether the original 
> statement came from ECMA, the IETF, or even here in the W3C.

What didn't work was that HTML4 validators did not perform any URI 
conformance checking - and very little attribute value checking at all.
>  - - -
> Again, just so it isn't crystal clear: I am not saying that longdesc 
> doesn't work or that WCAG doesn't matter.  I am saying that we asked 
> for arguments and counter arguments, and evaluated the input that we 
> were provided.

I must agree that several supporters of longdesc should consider 
whether they have are pursuing the right strategy. To argue for 
longdesc on a temporary basis is not convincing strategy.
> Paths forward from this point (as listed in the decision itself):
>     * use cases that specifically require longdesc,

What is wrong with "semantic link to a supplementary description"? Or 
as HTML4 puts it: "link to long description (complements alt)" What 
more is needed? I am sorry to have to repeat, but none of the 
"alternatives" (except <a rel="longdesc" href=* >) provides this.

>     * evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that that
>       growth is expected to continue, or

Turn on URI conformance checking - and we will se the correct use 
increase. This a chicken and egg argument.

>     * widespread interoperable implementation.

The decision document did not document lack of interoperable 

> Additionally, there is the path forward of a Formal Objection.

I am sorry to say it, but given the quality of the decision document, I 
hope that we do not need to use such big canons.
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 00:53:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:42 UTC