- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:06:01 -0700
- To: "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Steve Faulkner wrote: > > This is an incorrect, uninformed and inflammatory statement. > There is absolutely nothing in the current draft that 'contradicts > longdesc' whatever that may mean. > What is 'bad and damaging' is W3C staff members making such > statements. Hi Steve, As scribe of record: my notes may not completely capture the 'esprit' of Liam's statement. Currently there is no mention of @longdesc as a means or valid method of providing textual alternatives to images in the document. Given the pending decision from the Director w.r.t. the FO on longdesc, Liam was (as I heard and understood) expressing a concern over advancing a document that may either be extraordinarily quickly out of date, or contradictory to the 'reality' as we know it today. From that perspective, it could indeed appear "damaging" to the proposed Extension Spec before the Director, and/or to the TF's (and by extension WG's) credibility, not to mention offering contradictory advise to those who have not followed the machinations of this entire saga. The over-arching point that was being expressed on the call - as I heard it - was that one of the Chairs wants to see progress, and members of the TF want to wait for the Directors decision on longdesc, to ensure the document is both complete and accurate. It was not, and was never intended to be, a slight against the document or you as editor Steve - in fact your contributions and effort were again praised and noted on the call, if not captured in the minutes - my bad there. JF
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 18:06:58 UTC