Re: Split Issue 30?

On 02/10/2012 08:34 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> 1. Should ARIA attributes be allowed to point to @hidden elements.
>>> 2. Should @longdesc be marked as obsolete.
>>> However it seems like issue 2 depends on issue 1. I.e. the case for
>>> marking longdesc as obsolete is stronger if ARIA is allowed to point
>>> to hidden elements.
>>> Would it be possible to ensure that we decide on 1 before we poll on
>>> 2?
> The more I think about this, the more it just doesn't seem right.
> It seems that splitting off and then re-ordering issues as proposed
> above is to be used as a scheme to strengthen the effort to kill off
> longdesc.
> Therefore, I object and ask to have the poll run concurrently on all proposals.
> All of my cards are on the table. No tricks are up my sleeve. I hope
> the same it true of others.
> Let's have the poll fair and square and decide this thing without further delay.

I dislike this characterization and the innuendo that people may be 
playing tricks.

You indicate (correctly) that this discussion has been going on for 
several years.  Less than two years ago, a decision was rendered based 
on the proposals that were provided.

We subsequently reopened the discussion based on use cases that could 
have been provided during that time, but for whatever reason was not.

One way to proceed would be to split the issues and proceed as you 
previously stated: namely to re-decide the deprecation issue without 
considering the proposed change to how certain aria attributes are 

One possible outcome of that would be that we would need to once again 
reopen the deprecation decision once that data has been gathered and 
presented.  I don't believe anybody wants that.

Deciding multiple issues concurrently is not without its complications. 
  If there are found to be strong objections to leaving the 
interpretation of these aria attributes as the currently are spec'ed 
(based on the revert request) and the proposal that attracts the weakest 
objections also happens to deprecate longdesc, some (including perhaps 
yourself) might not consider the selection of that proposal to be fair.

(The converse is also possible: we could find that there are strong 
objections to deprecating longdesc, and not give due consideration to 
the merits of the proposed change to how area attributes should be 

This is not a game where the objective is to win independent of the 
merits of the arguments.  This is all about the merits of the arguments.

> On Wed, Feb 9, 2012, I wrote:
>> People have had seven years
> Sorry. Typo. Should have been "several years"
> Best Regards,
> Laura
> --
> Laura L. Carlson

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 14:23:41 UTC