W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2012

RE: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:33:29 -0700
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "'HTMLAccessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002701cd026d$29baef20$7d30cd60$@ca>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Since a lot of the content in existance for @longdesc is
> non-conformant anyway, I don't understand that argument.

I personally will not get dragged down that rat-hole. Suffice to say I
disagree with the assessment you seem to be believing in, and outright
reject that premise of the Hixie/Pilgrim "Longdesc Lottery" slander.
Without public data & proof it holds little credence for me. 

Irrespective of those assertions, the amount of legacy content from a decade
ago that is non-conformant is a non-factor - we have valid examples of more
current content that is properly authored and current on the web today.  We
also have legacy user-agent support, and legacy authoring tool support,
which allows authors to create conformant @longdesc today. See:
http://john.foliot.ca/wysiwyg_longdesc/ (May, 2011)

FUD has no place in this discussion.  

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


> Learning from existing @longdesc experience is certainly good.

We are not far apart then.

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 05:34:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:06 UTC