- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:31:02 -0400
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
scott lewis wrote, quote: That said, when a change is requested the burden of proof falls on the requester. And that swings both ways: someone wanting to add <longdesc> into the spec faces the same burden of proof as someone wanting to take <image>'s @alt out of the spec. unquote excuse me, but longdesc isn't being proposed as an addition to HTML5; it exists in the only NORMATIVE spec, HTML4x, so the burden of proof that it isn't necessary falls upon those who made the initial decision to deprecate it... restoring features isn't adding features; this is why i STILL believe that starting with HTML5 as our working draft is WRONG; each change from HTML4x to HTML5, therefore, MUST be justified; HTML4x remains the baseline from which we should be working; each addition, deprecation, change or deletions should be introduced to the HTML WG individually, and not adopted wholesale; i appreciate the work and effort that went into HTML5, but i am unwilling to accept it in toto, part and parcel, especially when it has deprecated so much of the accessibility enhancements built-into HTML4x i still hold to the opinion that our development path should start with HTML 4.01, its corrections and errata, and THEN introduce each issue from the HTML5 draft as INDIVIDUAL issues. i am EXTREMELY uncomfortable in being forced to choose a draft, in toto, as our basic working draft slash foundational document, because too many of HTML4x's babies are being flushed down the drain with the bathwater of those issues which need to be addressed more fully, such as the integration of XForms work into HTML markup, and fixing that which is actually broken, by examining each piece individually; comparing and contrasting HTML4x against HTML5 is a good, constructive effort, but to adopt HTML5 and then be told that specific items for specific use cases and re-use cases which have been stripped from HTML4x need to be justified in order to be retained or restored to the proposed HTML5 working draft is a slap in the face of those who worked extremely hard to ensure that HTML4x addressed accessibility issues, and an even harder blow to the guts of the users who actually benefit from them... gregory. PS: my detailed development path post, quote: * Reasons Why HTML 4.01 Strict Should Remain the HTML WG's Foundation Document unquote is archived at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0652.html> ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Let me save you from drowning," said the monkey as he placed the fish into a tree. -- Hindu proverb ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net> Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 20:31:14 UTC