Re: Alternate proposal for ISSUE-30 longdesc

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:
> Let me turn it around. What do you think is the value of making longdesc
> nonconforming instead of conforming with a warning? (I mentioned what I
> thought was the downside of conforming-with-a-warning compared to
> nonconforming in my Impact section, but I am curious what you think.)

If we have determined that aria-describedby is a better attribute from
an accessibility point of view, I think we should put full force
behind that message and deprecate longdesc rather then by being
wishy-washy. This seems like the best way to help accessibility.

Additionally, from a language lawyer point of view, the whole point of
conforming vs. non-conforming to me is that we, as spec authors,
recommend that people use things that are conforming, and recommend
that people don't use things that are non-conforming. That to me is
the sole purpose of the term "conforming". (Note that implementation
requirements are unaffected by conformity).

So the concept of "conforming but with a warning" seems self contradicting.

/ Jonas

Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 17:19:58 UTC