- From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:54:46 -0800
- To: Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Issuing a validation warning may also provide a opportunity to refer content authors to a non-normative document detailing various long description alternatives to @longdesc. On Dec 6, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com> wrote: > Another potential compromise solution for consensus would be to spec > longdesc as "obsolete but conforming", i.e. effectively "deprecated". > This option has previously received some support in the TF and HTMLWG: > > In the HTML-A11Y-TF's original poll: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0180.html > > Richard and Judy: > http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html > > Janina: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2012Mar/0014.html > > Steve: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2012Mar/0031.html > > Cynthia > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0289.html > > James: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Nov/0151.html And Charles, quoted in the above message as saying, "Frankly, I'm all in favour of that…" > Me: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0254.html > > Since the HTML5 spec already requires UAs to expose longdesc [1] this > option would just result in validators issuing a warning instead of an > error. I think this approach would provide better advice to authors > and is more likely to gain consensus in the HTMLWG. > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#dom-img-longdesc > > -Matt >
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 18:56:10 UTC