- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:21:24 -0700
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Sep 17, 2012, at 15:06 , Gez Lemon <g.lemon@webprofession.com> wrote: > On 17 September 2012 22:30, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Sep 17, 2012, at 13:58 , Gez Lemon <g.lemon@webprofession.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> I support the change proposal, as there is no other reliable method >>> that is supported today that does the same thing as longdesc. >> >> The trouble is, longdesc is neither widely supported nor reliable today. If it was, I suspect that we would not be having this discussion. > > It is better supported and more reliable than no solution at all for > providing a long description for complex images. > So your thesis is that we should stick with a poor solution, that works only in controlled environments (not the public internet), and with a limited number of UAs, not all, and for whcih the situation is not improving nor likely to, rather than do better? "I'm sorry, I cannot give you a car because you already have a broken bicycle." Pshaw, I say, I and many others have much higher aspirations. On Sep 17, 2012, at 15:13 , John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > David Singer wrote: >> >> The trouble is, longdesc is neither widely supported nor reliable >> today. If it was, I suspect that we would not be having this >> discussion. >> > > With due respect, that wholly depends on how you measure support and > reliability. > A success is a success no matter how you measure it; indeed, given a careful measurement of limited spaces on both the UA and content side, yes, there are good patches. I do not think that is not good enough. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 22:21:54 UTC