[Bug 24168] Please revise new normative statement and example

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24168

Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #8 from Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> ---
I haven't looked for the relevant minutes.

As far as I am concerned the effect is editorial, rather than substantive, and
stating that authors should not rely *solely* on longdesc implies that they
should retain it as a front-line tool.

At the same time, while "provides increased accesssibility" makes sense in
conversation, it isn't at all clear what it requires or what qualifies in a
given case.

I doubt the specification is going to be revised soon. Given that, I doubt much
will happen with this bug in practice.

If there is ever an effort to revise the specification again, it may be worth
looking carefully at the overall relationship of longdesc to alternatives
available at that time - currently there are few if any formats that provide
equivalent access to graphics in practice.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 16:05:38 UTC