Re: ISSUE-204: aria-hidden - Chairs Solicit Proposals

On 03/12/2012 07:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Is anyone planning to write a change proposal arguing against
>> allowing ARIA to reference @hidden content? Or can the HTMLWG agree
>> amicable consensus on this issue and move on?
> You're more likely to get consensus on your proposal if you revise
> the rationale. It's logically possible to support keeping longdesc
> and to also support ARIA pointing to @hidden content. And the Details
> of your proposal would probably be acceptable to a person who
> supports such a position, but the Rationale likely would not, since
> it needlessly argues against longdesc. An example of a Rationale that
> might be more broadly persuasive would use an example that does not
> directly compete with longdesc, for example in a non-<img>  context.

Indeed.  As long as this proposal contains rationale that needlessly 
argues against longdesc, I think we can pretty much be assured that 
there will be a counter-proposal that addresses that rationale.

Matthew: for the best possible results, I strongly encourage you to 
remove everything that does not directly support the actual changes that 
this Change Proposal identifies in its "Details" section.  Heck, I would 
go further and suggest you change the URL to match the abstract.

> Remember that we still have ISSUE-30 to resolve subsequently, which
> will decide the fate of longdesc. The goal of splitting this issue
> was to separate the ARIA topic from deciding the fate of ARIA.

Should this proposal be adopted, the parts that are not relevant to 
issue 204 can be included in a Change Proposal for issue 30.

> (These are only informal comments, you can expect a formal review of
> your Change Proposal for the Chairs at a later time.)

Matthew: I encourage you not to wait, and instead make these changes 
BEFORE a call for counters is made.

> Regards, Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 01:51:59 UTC