W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Comments on IRC log

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:02:26 +0100
Message-ID: <46B19DA2.50502@cfit.ie>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@ncbi.ie>, foliot@wats.ca, "'Patrick H. Lauke'" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org

Ian Hickson wrote:
> It would be much more helpful to work from a problem description. As of 
> today, this page goes much more in this direction:
>    http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/LongdescRetention
> ...despite the name of the page, the actual description of the problem is 
> solution-agnostic.

I can see the limitations of a solution focused approach. The
limitations of the later are exacerbated when these proposed solutions
are built on the back of implementations that are not ideal in the first
place. Much of this thread has helped to clear that up for me, so thanks.

Personally, I guess I was on the back foot because it seemed to me that
certain (what I perceive as good) accessibility features of HTML were
for want of a better word  - threatened. However in truth I have to
consider that many of them may not be ideal implementations in the first
place and could be improved. I feel conflicted about this however, as to
some degree a working feature in the hand is worth two in the bush but
as Chaals pointed out (cannot find the ref just now) in some ways we
have a tabula rasa (in principle) where with the proper approach we can
fix non-ideal implementations in the spec, as I guess we are older and
wiser and can look back at how successful HTML 4 has been.

Having said that (and this is my own Pavlovian response) please continue
to support (if not recommend) useful features (you know the list)  and
let them sit alongside the shiny new improved aspects of the spec. :-)

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 09:02:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC