- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 18:15:02 +0200
- To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:54:41 +0200, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, the same argument, and same bullet point.
cheers
--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 16:16:33 UTC