Re: Split Issue 30? (was: Chair review of "Keep Longdesc Deprecated" Change Proposal)

Hi Smylers, Sam, and all,

> > > 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.
>
> Or the opposite, surely?

Yes, you are right on that point. Thanks, Smylers.

It is not a good situation. Apparently a split would NOT mean a true
separation of issues. I had incorrectly assumed that it did until I
reread and further contemplated Jonas's message. Splitting off the
issue to improve ARIA would still be tied to obsoleting longdesc. I
had wrongly assumed that an ARIA/hidden issue would be split off from
the longdesc issue for the sole purpose of helping ARIA and not with a
goal of obsoleting longdesc too.

The Chairs set the agenda and they are the ones who promised last year
to expedite the longdesc issue in order to proceed with Last Call. I
don't know the best way to handle this situation. Perhaps poll Jona's
improve @hidden proposal this week and poll the fate of longdesc next
week. But I'll leave it to them to figure out how to handle this
fairly. Justice is all that is asked for. Justice.

Best Regards,
Laura
--
Laura L. Carlson


On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com> wrote:
> Laura Carlson writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Or the opposite, surely? If the answer to question 1 above is deemed to
> be 'no' then it strengthens the case for longdesc in question 2.
>
> As somebody without a vested interest in any direction at all, I'd much
> rather consider question 2 in the full knowledge of which way question 1
> has been determined, so that I make any appropriate objections from a
> position of knowledge, rather than trying to guess which way question 1
> will go.
>
> And the matter of which question logically depends on the other is
> unaffected by the order in which the issues were initially raised. I
> want us to produce the best possible HTML we can for the long term, even
> if that sometimes means the short-term dissatisfaction of dealing with
> issues in a different order from that in which they were raised.
>
> As long as we do deal with all issues, then as soon as we have done the
> order in which we got there becomes an unimportant quirk of history.
>
> Cheers
>
> Smylers
>



-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 12:37:53 UTC