- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:49:42 +0200
- To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Cc: 'James Craig' <jcraig@apple.com>, 'Steve Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
John Foliot, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:29:41 -0700:
> James Craig wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Steve Faulkner 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:
[ ... ]
> - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0294.html
[Opera, iCab, Firefox+JAWs, IE+JAWs/WindowEyes/SuperNova/HAL]
> 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).
We should probably not mix CR criteria and validation. To take an
example: Imagine that only two browsers supported the <details>
element, for instance, then a validator warning might be due.
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 22:50:17 UTC