Re: Alternate proposal for ISSUE-30 longdesc

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:44:37 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <>  


> I personally do not think the case for longdesc is terribly compelling.  
> I wanted to write this proposal so we have a middle-ground position on  
> the table, that is a compromise between fully noncomforming and fully  
> conforming. We can examine whether that middle ground satisfies more  
> people than either of the extremes. If it cannot draw more support than  
> either of the previous proposals then I will likely withdraw it.

Unlike Hixie's proposal, I think that this proposal can turn into  
something I can support.

I don't think the statement in the Wiki that longdesc must refer to an  
external page is accurate, and I would in any case change my change  
proposal to explicitly allow for longdesc references to be within the page  
(my understanding is that this is already allowed). I do consider that in  
the long term longdesc should be phased out in favour of a more  
generalised solution to the problem it solves - something like  
aria-describedBy, but with a better way of handling descriptions that  
*are* external references.

>> The second argument in the change proposal is:
>> "Some laws, regulations and organizational policies may refer to
>> longdesc by name."
>> Using this as argument for keeping any feature seems very sad to me.
>> The idealist in me strongly prefers to add accessibility features
>> based on what helps people with accessibility needs, rather than what
>> local laws say.

It is not axiomatic that laws, regulations and organisational policies are  
wrong. Many things done for accessibility begin as one of those things.



Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk       Try Opera:

Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 14:12:53 UTC