- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:29:41 -0700
- To: "'James Craig'" <jcraig@apple.com>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
James Craig wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > If longdesc is put back in the spec i would consider it > > appropriate to have a warning about its use. I would consider it a > > feature at risk CR wise unless its interoperable support in browsers > > is improved. > > I think we're in agreement then. > As I have previously noted, the existing support for @longdesc TODAY meets the CR exit criteria as written: "For this specification to be advanced to Proposed Recommendation, there must be at least two independent, interoperable implementations of each feature. Each feature may be implemented by a different set of products, there is no requirement that all features be implemented by a single product." (where products is defined as "Web browsers and other interactive user agents"). - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0294.html * Opera * iCab * IE (6,7,8,9) + JAWs * Firefox (all versions) + JAWs * IE (6,7,8,9) + WindowEyes * IE (6,7,8,9) + SuperNova/HAL (I have not test Firefox with either of those 2 Screen readers: they may or may not meet the success criteria) That's 6, the requirement is for 2. (Even without the addition of JAWs, we have 2 native implementations based on different code stacks, with iCab being based upon WebKit, and Opera based upon Presto). JF
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 22:30:25 UTC