Re: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> > As Chaals pointed out almost 3 years ago, we can go through the whole
>> > process to emerge at the end with something that is essentially what
>> > @longdesc is today, but with a shiny new name.
>>
>> If after such an exercise we end up exactly at the same spot where
>> @longdesc is now, then indeed there is no purpose in giving it a new
>> name. However, it is an assumption that may not hold true. Instead,
>> all it achieves is that we keep spinning in circles. Is it really that
>> important to hold on to the name?
>
> 2 words: backwards compatibility, so yes, keeping the name is important.

Since a lot of the content in existance for @longdesc is
non-conformant anyway, I don't understand that argument.


>> Let's just get started on redefining
>> what we want, from scratch, without any prejudice as to where we will
>> end, and see where the journey takes us. If we end up in the same
>> place and it's all achievable with @longdesc, then we can still put
>> that label back on the effort.
>
> I support the effort to examine user requirements, as well as HTML5's
> requirements to provide appropriate technology to support both users and
> other business & legal requirements.  I would welcome the opportunity to
> examine @longdesc to see if we  can improve and expand its usefulness, but I
> think that tossing out the existing attribute without a viable replacement
> today does significant harm and benefits no-one.

The development that I'm suggesting does not necessarily imply tossing
out @longdesc, so I don't understand that argument either.


> So rather than casting it as a blank slate, let's cast it as a period of
> refinement. I think in that light you would find wider support moving
> forward.

Learning from existing @longdesc experience is certainly good.

Silvia.

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 04:33:35 UTC