Re: ISSUE-194: full-transcript - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

On 03/15/2012 07:31 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Sam Ruby<>  wrote:
>> On 03/14/2012 11:04 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Sam Ruby<>    wrote:
>>>> On 03/14/2012 08:27 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>>> In my mind, it is possible that the HTML WG decides that there is
>>>>> sufficient need for a general mechanism to add off-page textual
>>>>> representations to certain complex elements to HTML5, elements such as
>>>>> canvas, img, video, audio, table, or figure. If such a general
>>>>> mechanism were added - which could be called @longdesc or @href or
>>>>> @transcript - such a mechanism would fulfill the needs of this issue.
>>>> Can you cite any existing proposal that, if adopted, would address this
>>>> need?
>>> The need for a generic attribute to provide linked lengthy text
>>> representations for complex elements has been emerging.
>> Perhaps it could be something that addresses.
>>> There isn't currently a proposal for such an attribute. One reason is
>>> that we've mainly looked at solving these problems with each element
>>> individually and haven't really abstracted this as a common problem
>>> yet. Another reason is that @longdesc could be expanded for such other
>>> elements, but right now it's not even conformant. Basically, we've not
>>> had this discussion yet. This is why I am asking for more time on this
>>> issue for<video>.
>> If you have something you wish to propose, please do so.  I'll check with my
>> co-chairs, but my position is that I will not support deferring something
>> based on the possibility that something that nobody is actively working on
>> might actually happen.
> A @aria-describedAt attribute is under discussion. Are you saying that
> unless we make a concrete proposal for such an attribute, we may be
> better off moving this requirement to

Depends on what you mean by "this requirement".

The conversation on @aria-describedAt appears to be petering out.

All things with explicit proposals, such as the proposal we have in hand 
for 194, will be evaluated.

> Cheers,
> Silvia.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 12:28:16 UTC