- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 06:54:41 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Hi Silvia and all, On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:16:50 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> In an effort to work towards a consensus Change Proposal on Issue 194, >> we've had several media subgroup meetings, the result of which is the >> following Change Proposal: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ISSUE-194/TranscriptElement > > > First up: This meets the "I can live with it" test for me. > > But... a couple of comments: > > In positive effects it claims to be better than longdesc - apparently > because it can point to something in the page. Since longdesc can do that > too, I don't see how that claim is justifiable - and anyway I don't think it > is important to this case. It should simply be removed. It also claims to be better than aria-describedAt too. Please remove that bullet point, it isn't needed and may cause objections. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 11:55:37 UTC