Re: Process objections to FPWD

Hi Charles,

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <
chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> **
> Hi Silvia,
>
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:35:12 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> chair hat off.
>
> I agree with this suggestion of making @longdesc "obsolete but conforming".
>
>
> Is this a late objection to publication of a First Public Working Draft,
> or an editorial suggestion?
>

It's feedback into the TF - I believe a real objection would only be
necessary when this goes to the full WG.


> I would pair it with a proposal of a new attribute that provides links to
> longer content descriptions for more than just the <img> element.
>
> I presume this is not an objection of any kind, just an expression of
> desire to see a work item.
>

Indeed.


>
> While I welcome any effort in that direction, I have explicitly not done
> that for this specification. As I have said before, my goal is to produce a
> specification for longdesc, that is at least a good enough specification
> that it could be considered for Recommendation.
>

I agree that this is the right path for HTML5.


I would be very happy to see longdesc overtaken in reality by something
> better, and I welcome efforts to produce that. Meanwhile, I believe it is
> worthwhile to specify longdesc since it is already used, promoted, and
> implemented in various places - and as you imply below, to varying degrees
> of quality.
>

I simply would prefer to see an integrated strategy that looks towards the
future.


>
> In addition, I would like to see a rationale document for the @longdesc
> extension spec that addresses the often-heard objections in a succinct
> manner. In particular I'd like to see an explanation of how the different
> browsers different in their implementation and interpretation of the value
> of the @longdesc attribute (some versions of IE mapping it to a description
> rather than a link) and how AT deal and fix this situation. I believe this
> is crucial for people to understand
>
>
> Again, is this an objection to requesting that HTML publish a FPWD of the
> extension spec?
>

No, it is simply a request to add a small partner document to the extension
spec to give the extension spec a better rationale.

Documenting implementation in more detail would be a good thing to do. Note
> that there is a lot of material already - Laura Carlson collected plenty of
> information, and a few extra notes have been added recently in this group.
>

I know and that material is simply too extensive to digest. I would reduce
it to only implementation-specific details - information that proves there
are multiple compatible implementations.

Cheers,
Silvia.