- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 23:02:34 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Janina Sajka, Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:41:51 +0000: >>>>> Question: Is there a chance that "we could do" @aria-describedat *now*? >>>>> I am convinced that the chances for a amicable solution would increase >>>>> greatly if one could move from talk to action with regard to >>>>> @aria-describedat. >>>> >>>> You're asking the core question, imho. I wish we could simply say "yes" >>>> and be done with it, >>> >>>> Unfortunately, ARIA-DescribedAt doesn't exist anywhere except on our "To >>>> Do" list. >>> >>> So, the process is the reason we can't say 'use @aria-describedat' ... > > Heavens, no! > > Explain to me, if you think the process is at fault, why we should drop > everything currently in process to create a substitute for > somethingthat already exists. Please explain this wisdom, because it > sounds like folly to me. I subsequently proposed that we write a separate specification for @aria-describedAT/@longdesc. So rather than drop it, I suggest to run with it. Could we do that? We would have to make a change proposal which includes - or eventually promises [I'm not sure what the chairs woudl want] - a specification of '@aria-describedAT/@longdesc'. I see 2-3 options of such a mini-spec - but there could be more: * Either the spec describes aria-describedAT - and obsoletes @longdesc * Or the spec describes aria-describedAT - and says that @longdesc can be used, whenever aria-describedAT is used as well. * Or we write a spec which defines @longdesc as an ARIA attribute - to be used as you have envisioned @aria-descrbedAT. [Thus, we would drop aria-descrbedat and only have @longdesc.] -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 22:03:13 UTC