- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:54:38 +0200
- To: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Janina Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Judy Brewer" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>
On Wed, 18 May 2011 00:49:08 +0200, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
wrote:
> RESOLUTION:
> The Task Force supports the Issue 30 Change Proposal at:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
Support (although I expect to check over Silvia's suggestions because I am
likely to support them - following the principle I stated before that I
think we're better having the attribute and resolving further bugs than
starting from a point where we don't have it).
> RESOLUTION:
> The Task Force supports a Formal Objection escalation should it
> appear that HTML last call is to be published without the longdesc as
> in our supported proposal
I strongly object to this proposal.
There is a resolution of ISSUE-30, and while I agree that resolution was
not the one that should have been reached I don't think that a Last Call
should be held up on a process basis while there is a re-analysis of the
issue. I do not understand how it changes the reality whether the further
analysis takes place as part of last call or not, and some advantages to
having it take place within the context of last call.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 09:55:42 UTC