- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:39:12 +0200
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
You understand that is a quite confusing signal to ask the vendors about a new name, then. Leif H Silli Laura Carlson, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:32:24 -0500: > Hi Leif, > > Obsoleting longdesc in any way is not under consideration. > > Best Regards, > Laura > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Leif Halvard Silli > <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: >> Laura Carlson, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:19:53 -0500: >>> Hi Leif, >>> >>>> Thank you for pointing to David's message. Clearly, name change might >>>> be a better idea than we have admitted. >>>> >>>> In that case, a logical 'deal' to consider >>> >>> No 'deal' is in consideration. This is an inquiry only. >> >> Sorry, I don't want to disturb the inquiry so I change the topic so you >> don't feel you need to stand for my words. >> >> The argument has been mad, in this recent discussion, that HTML5 has no >> means for deprecation of features. In the first longdesc poll, there >> were no alternatives to replace it with and thus, true deprecation was >> not possible. But if an alternative emerged, then HTML5 has some >> mechanisms for making features obsolete but conforming, as pointed out >> with in my message with the unlucky word 'deal'.[1] >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/mid/20120919165642623450.594a22b3@xn--mlform-iua.no >> >> Leif Halvard Silli > > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson >
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 15:39:46 UTC