- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:19:05 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 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