- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:19:03 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote: >>> 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. No one has claimed anything otherwise (sorry to call you out, but you are making a straw man argument). However my reading of the current change proposal from Maciej is that the *only* argument for making it conforming is that there are laws requiring its use. If the attribute does indeed have technical merits, and that there happen to be laws for a good reason, then the attribute should be able to stand on its own technical merits. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 14:19:55 UTC