Re: Split Issue 30?

On 02/10/2012 02:25 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 10:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Leif,
>>>
>>>> Well, OK, to the Chairs, then unique use cases for
>>>> @longdesc seems to be crucial.
>>> I reject the notion that providing unique use cases that *only*
>>> longdesc can fulfill is to be the deciding factor for including
>>> longdesc in the language.
>>>
>>> If I misunderstood the original decision and this is the intent and
>>> will be the determining factor, perhaps a Formal Objection should have
>>> been made after the first decision on that basis instead of the
>>> reopen.
>> That was indeed the original basis for the decision. While I do not
>> want to prejudge the reopened issue before it goes to survey, I expect
>> there are at least two paths to making a strong case for longdesc:
>>
>> (1) Show that some valid use cases can *only* be fulfilled by longdesc.
>> (2) Show that for some valid use cases, longdesc has significant
>> benefits over other possible solutions, even if it is not the only
>> solution; these claimed benefits would then be weighed against the
>> claimed harmful effects of longdesc.
>
> Why was the large list of valid use cases included in the Change
> Proposal insufficient?

Which change proposal are you asking about?

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/longdesc
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc

Here is the relevant quote from the original decision concerning the 
original proposal:

> A number of use cases for semantically rich, structured descriptions
> of images were provided, however those use cases are abstract and don't
> directly and specifically require the support of a longdesc attribute.
> Many objected to inclusion of features in the language that have proven
> to be problematic and don't support any known use cases. This objection
> was found to be strong.

For clarity (since the wiki page was updated), the original use cases 
were listed here:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=LongdescRetention&oldid=5725#Use_Cases

As to the the "InstateLongdesc" proposal, we do feel that these 
addressed the concern to the point that they merit consideration by the 
wider working group.  In particular "we feel it is important that the 
Working Group be given adequate time to evaluate this data, and 
potentially either rebut it or prepare Alternate Change Proposals based 
on this new information".

In short, if you are talking about the current change proposal, the 
answer is "we don't know yet", that's why we are soliciting alternate 
proposals and (ultimately) may (who am I kidding?: will most likely) 
need a new survey.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 20:20:59 UTC