- From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:02:25 -0400
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Cc: wai-xtech-request@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Hey- 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. Regards- -Doug 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