- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:56:29 -0500
- To: W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
David Bolter wrote: > Sorry a bit rushed here and I don't feel like I fully understand this > thread. This technique along with many other that have surfaced recently seem to be a reaction to longdesc being dropped from HTML5. No one has come up with anything simpler or better than longdesc. Banishing an existing solution while not providing a better solution, it not a solution. All solutions presented to date seem to me to be convoluted hacks. The existing solution should have been improved (we had bugs on how to do that [1] [2] [3] [4]), or the existing solution should be gracefully replaced with a better solution. The Chairs' Decision [5] states that: QUOTE This issue can be reopened if new information comes up. Examples of possible relevant new information include: * use cases that specifically require longdesc, * evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that that growth is expected to continue, or * widespread interoperable implementation. UNQUOTE I have been researching and amassing use cases of Longdesc in the Wild. http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html Is this information grounds to reopen the issue or the basis for a formal objection? Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10019 [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10017 [3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10018 [4] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10015 [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 20:57:10 UTC