- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:47:36 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21564 Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks| |21566 --- Comment #1 from Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> --- In general I think this is a bad idea, and in practice I think that unless it is extremely carefully phrased, it provides a way to justify not supporting longdesc: "The vast majority of longdescs are useless, so a valid heuristic is to say that if there is a longdesc it is useless and suppress it". Easy to implement, likely to be recommended by some strong and respected advocates of HTML, but I think highly counter-productive to accessibility in general and the purposes of this specification in particular. It might make sense to modify this proposal to provide an exception case for 21566, but IMHO only when it has been *determined* that the specific longdesc is useless. (There's still weasel-room with that proposal, but this spec is not going to solve all the problems of human behaviour, it will just tell people who want to get this right how to do so.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:47:37 UTC