W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

RE: Alternate proposal for ISSUE-30 longdesc

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:50:04 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Matt May'" <mattmay@adobe.com>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'HTMLwg WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <018401cab422$230aab70$69200250$@edu>
Matt May wrote:
> On the proposal itself, I am, like Chaals, more positive about it than
> other proposals I've seen.

I was preparing a longer response to this thread, but at this point in
time will opt instead of echoing both Chaals and Matt in saying that this
might be acceptable - like others I suspect that the devil will be in the
details - specifically the warning advisory that we issue to authors.
Phrased in the context that authors should be aware that there *might* be
a better technique to achieve this goal exists is an acceptable position.
However telling them that using @longdesc is *WRONG* would be unacceptable

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 00:50:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC