- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:42:51 +0100
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "HTMLwg WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:30:04 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > Consolidating some replies... > > On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:12 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:44:37 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak >> <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescConformingWithWarning >> Unlike Hixie's proposal, I think that this proposal can turn into >> something I can support. > > Do you think changes are needed for you to feel comfortable supporting > it? Fundamentally it depends what the warning *says* > I suspect it's better to encourage authors to use aria- > describedby="foo" instead of longdesc="#foo". Works for Me >>>> 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. > > > On Feb 22, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> >>> >>> bgcolor was deprecated in HTML4.01, "Deprecated" being the closest >>> status HTML4.01 had to HTML5's "Obsolete but conforming". So my >>> proposal would actually treat longdesc the exact same way ... Like Sam, I think it makes sense to revisit the terminology. I don't see any real value in the change, and it makes life a bit more confusing for people who have studied this stuff for a while. But I don't think that is specific to this issue and I think it is a generic editorial issue and should be dealt with as such. However, that part of the proposal, if we have a solution that offers the same possibilities (for both in-page and external links) as longdesc, makes sense. ... >>> longdesc had a beneficial intent, even if the outcome was often poor >>> due to the design details in the feature. (Or some other reason, which I would argue is the case if I thought the argument was worth having) >>> So it's possible someone may be using img@longdesc well... >> >> The argument brought forward in the change proposal was "sites are >> using it".... > The argument I am trying to make, but which I perhaps phrased poorly: > Some sites may be using this attribute for a valid purpose and in a > valid way. Thus, we should transition them more gently to a better > solution. agreed. ... Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 16:43:31 UTC