- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:36:06 +0200
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, David Bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Laura Carlson, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:39:34 -0500: > Hi James, Cynthia, David, and Ian, > > Sam wrote to Leif in another thread: > >> And (recognizing that I do NOT work for a >> browser vendor), I do believe that a solution for these problems can be >> specified in a matter of months and demonstrably conforming public >> implementations could be produced in a matter of months after that. >> >> As to whether or not that attribute should be spelled "longdesc" > > One question to our task force browser reps: would you implement a > change proposal with the exact same verbiage as the instatelongdesc > proposal [1] if the HTML5 attribute name @longdesc was changed to > @desc or @describedat something similar [2]? Does the name make a > difference to your company implementing it? I see what you cite from Sam. But what was it in this debate that made a pure name change could help? The only thing I have seen is the fact that @longdesc is so often misused that it would be better with a new attribute name, see Silvia's message.[1] [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/CAHp8n2m1W_4DSoOpbKPpQAMp68hVPF=SJ35wxE2Tb5d8hAnzFA@mail.gmail.com -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 13:36:40 UTC