<off-public.html>: hypothetical question on longdesc

My reading of what you say below, Sam, is that unless a CP in the 
ISSUE-30 process directly proposes it, then - regardless of the outcome 
of  ISSUE-30, evaluation of subsequent proposals to use @longdesc for 
other elements - <iframe>, <video>, <whatnot>, will be deferred to 
HTML.next.

By contrast, my impression is that some longdesc supporters think that, 
if @longdesc is 'instantiated' for <img>, then we can - within the 
HTML5 time frame - subsequently discuss it for other elements.

Leif H Silli

Sam Ruby, Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:38:46 -0400:
> On 03/17/2012 09:38 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> 
>> QUESTION: Can you give us a hint about how it would be evaluated if
>> Lauras - or another - proposal promotes @longdesc for *any* element
>> that have role=img, versus Laura's current proposal - which - though it
>> also contains language which says that one could expand its use -
>> allows it on the img element alone?
> 
> *IF* such a proposal is brought forward to expand its use, then we 
> will evaluate it.
> 
> Meanwhile, we desperately need to break out of the following state:
> 
> 1) We need a decision *now* on longdesc
> 2) We are still working on proposals for longdesc
> 3) The chairs are jerks
> 
> It is theoretically possible for longdesc to be 'instated' as a valid 
> attribute on img in HTML5, but removed in HTML.next.  It is also 
> theoretically possible that longdesc is a valid attribute on img in 
> HTML5, and will be valid on div too in HTML.next.
> 
> If people are happy with one or more proposals as they exist today 
> for issues 30 or issue 204, then I have a simple request: STOP 
> WORKING ON THEM!  If not, then my request is: bring forward a 
> complete proposal: NOW!
> 
> We need to get HTML5 behind us, so that we can get to have this fun 
> all over again.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 12:33:22 UTC