- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:15:53 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26059 --- Comment #4 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Robin Berjon from comment #3) > (In reply to Laura Carlson from comment #2) > > Where in the HTML5 spec would you consider it more appropriate to let people > > know that we have a longdesc HTML5 attribute? Right now it is missing. > > Listing it somewhere more appropriate in the HTML5 spec would be fine with > > me. > > My point is that there is no reason for it, or any other extension, to be > listed in the HTML specification. The point is to move towards greater > orthogonality and to be more nimble, more web-friendly, and less towards > centralisation of power on a single specification. Hi Robin, Your phopspphy would seem to make sense if that phopspphy was: 1. Actively promoted by the HTML WG and HTML5. Is it? 2. Applied evenly thoughout HTML5. However, HTML5 promotes and links to other specs. For example: <quote> "Authors may use the ARIA role and aria-* attributes on HTML elements, in accordance with the requirements described in the ARIA specifications" http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#wai-aria Authors are encouraged to make use of the following documents for guidance on using ARIA in HTML beyond that which is provided in this section: Using WAI-ARIA in HTML http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria-in-html/master/index.html WAI-ARIA 1.0 Authoring Practices http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/" <unquote> It seems to me that linking to the longdesc spec from HTML5 would help to alleviate centralization of power on the single HTML5 specification. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2014 16:15:55 UTC