On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:30 , Maciej Stachowiak 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. > > I think Jonas's point was that they are not necessarily right. More to the point, they were written with a particular version of HTML in mind and existence, whether or not they remembered to say so. The laws in question, as I understand, were never intended to be prescriptive of what standards-writers wrote, merely descriptive of what was in the said standards (the laws are prescriptive in other respects, of course). When the HTML version changes, should they wish to adopt it and prescribe how to use it, they are at liberty to do so. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 16:04:17 UTC