- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:05:30 +0100
- To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Judy Brewer, Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:17:49 -0500: > At 05:54 AM 3/8/2012 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> John Foliot, Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:22:44 -0500: > The longdesc proposal has already been substantially updated in the > version of the TF-supported longdesc proposal that is awaiting > consideration under the HTML WG decision policy. The changes made > already reflect extensive adaptations according to discussion and > input from HTML WG participants. Generating yet more proposals, > rather than focusing attention on getting a hearing for the proposal > that is already on the table and has already received such extensive > work, is likely to cause further delay rather than help resolve the > issue. My goal is not, in itself, that the CP proposes the status to become 'obsolete but conforming', but rather that the transition argument is given more weight, because that could increase @longdesc's chances of becoming conforming. [I did not see it like that before - then I thought the best would to just emphasize the importance of @longdesc.] The transition argument could make the CP less controversial and thus increase its support. Of course, 'obsolete but conforming' fits well with a transition status, but fully conforming can work too. I don't know for sure what the chairs would consider least controversial - but I know that they look for 'least controversial'. I now think the reason why 'obsolete but conforming' apparently was considered *most* controversial - it went out first - in the previous vote, was that it had a thin justification. One reason the argumentation was thin was that no one in the HTMLWG was aware of the plans about aria-describedAT - if they were such plans back then. The current CP does mention @aria-describedAT. As such this - in all likelihood - temporary status of @longdesc, is thus not unreflected in the CP. If there comes to a new vote, now, then I will probably say that @longdesc should be conforming for the time being. [In practice, that would soon be equal to HTML5.] -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 07:06:09 UTC