- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 01:11:43 +0100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Silvia Pfeiffer, Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:45:55 +1100: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > This is why I am suggesting a Community Group. A CG >> My druthers would be to accept longdesc right away and call it obsolete >> but conforming. That clearly signals that a replacement is expected >> while providing needed functionality right away--the same it has been >> available since html 4. As I said, this is my >> preference. > > I agree with this. Doing this and in parallel creating a CG on > aria-describedat that takes on the requirements already collected in > Epub would IMO provide the fastest way forward. How do we get consensus for 'obsolete but conforming' + a CG for describedAT? Can this be expressed as a change proposal? And what if we do not get consensus for 'obsolete but conforming', do we then *not* create the community group? Meanwhile, another option: What if HTML5 simply was silent on @longdesc ... I mean: If we want to reuse @longdesc in ARIA - rather than creating a new @aria-describedAT, then HTML5 should not say that it is obsolete and should as well, not say that it is conforming - until it has been defined. -- Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 00:12:15 UTC