Re: the market hasn't spoken - it hasn't bothered to listened [was Re: fear of "invisible metadata"]


Let's step back a second.  The HTML 5.0 spec is a work in progress.  The 
methodology seems to be to carefully consider the implications of each 
thing that is put in, to best integrate it into the whole.

Just because @longdesc is not currently in the spec doesn't mean it 
won't be.  The HTML 5.0 spec will not get out of Last Call if it doesn't 
have *at least* as good a set of accessibility features as HTML4, and 
I'm sure that everyone here (browser vendors included) are approaching 
the issue with good will.

I think we will progress most effectively if we stick to technical 
arguments for (or against) features, rather than jump to conclusions.


William Loughborough wrote:
 > Monika Trebo wrote:
 > Again, as long as we don't have something better than longdesc we should
 > keep it in.
 > If the HTML5 WG (or whatever it's called) actually deprecated longdesc
 > they should be drummed out of the regiment - that would be an
 > unconscionable thing to do. Whatever arcane reasoning went into that
 > decision was without merit and attempts to hide it in "process" nonsense
 > is simply not acceptable.
 > Although the most important reason for longdesc is the accessibility
 > "market", there will develop other uses for it once the foxes have been
 > driven out of the hen house.
 > It wasn't broke and really doesn't need much (if any) fixing.
 > Does Sir Tim really know they deprecated longdesc?
 > Love.

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 05:02:37 UTC