Re: Split Issue 30?

On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Maciej,
>> That was indeed the original basis for the decision.
> Then the original basis for the decision was wrong.
>> 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.
> I have submitted both number one and number two to you. Plus much,
> much more has been supplied regarding numerous aspects of the issue.
> All rationale that I have is on the table. *ALL* of the submitted
> rationale deserves be considered in the new decision and not ignored
> in adjudication.
> If an issue is open, the previous judgment will not set limitations on
> what will be considered in the new decision. Arguments and rationale
> that are offered would be judged afresh and irrespective of what
> arguments were given the first time around. To do otherwise would
> indeed be to prejudge the issue.

Your materials will be considered. Your original question was about whether "providing unique use cases that *only*
longdesc can fulfill is to be the deciding factor for including longdesc in the language".

We're not judging at this time whether the materials you have provided so far meet this standard, I just wanted to clarify what the likely decision factors will be.

I hope my clarification above helps.


Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 20:51:26 UTC