- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:40:23 -0400
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 09/19/2012 11:32 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > Hi Leif, > > Obsoleting longdesc in any way is not under consideration. That is not a factual statement. It may not be something that you personally would be willing to consider. It may not be something that actually happens. But it is a factual statement that some people are not only considering that, but actively proposing to obsolete longdesc. > Best Regards, > Laura - Sam Ruby > 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 > > >
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 15:40:55 UTC