W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: hypothetical question on longdesc

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:52:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvdC+7Zf9FRvL4pVuBxgeOAVQ4tqK=Taw+3AqD24qH7=3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Hi Sam,

> Thanks for this email!  Sincerely!  There clearly is a disconnect, and
> perhaps now we can get to the bottom of it.

Yes Sam. There certainly is a disconnect. I am NOT asking for
provisional decision. I am asking for a real and permanent decision on

ISSUE-30 is:
"Should HTML5 include a longdesc attribute for images?"

Including an attribute or element in HTML5 is a SEPARATE issue than
modifying an attribute or element after a decision to include it in
the spec has been adjudicated.

A recent case in point is @hidden:

* ISSUE-95 on @hidden was to decide if we were to include the
attribute in the spec. [1] The decision was: "Yes, we will include the
hidden attribute is in the spec."
* ISSUE-204 is to decide if we are going to modify that same attribute. [2]

No one is asking to reverse the decision on ISSUE-95 and remove
@hidden in ISSUE-204. That has already been decided.  ISSUE-95 is a
real and permanent decision.

Other past examples exist including the ISSUE-15 decision to keep
canvas in the spec and the half dozen issues to modify canvas since
that decision; the ISSUE-90 decision to keep figure in the spec and
issues to modify figure since that decision is another example etc.

I am asking for equitable treatment for ISSUE-30.

Specifically I am asking:

1. For a real and permanent ISSUE-30 decision to the question: "Should
HTML5 include a longdesc attribute for images?"

2. And if the answer to that the decision turns out to be: "Yes, we
will include the longdesc attribute is in the spec.", I am asking: "Is
there realistically enough time in the HTML5 timeline after the
decision  ISSUE 30 is announced for this working group to modify
longdesc to expand it to other attributes?" Or have the delays made
that impossible?

Best Regards,

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/95
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Thanks for this email!  Sincerely!  There clearly is a disconnect, and
> perhaps now we can get to the bottom of it.
> On 03/19/2012 05:00 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>> Hi Sam,
>>> Meanwhile, we desperately need to break out of the following state:
>>> 1) We need a decision *now* on longdesc
>> We have needed an expedited decision for a very long time. It was
>> promised but not delivered. Not providing one has been damaging.
> What you appear to be saying is that you want a provisional decision that
> will immediately be reopened.  That is not something that I will support.
> If you need more a small amount of time to produce proposals, I think that
> could be accommodated.  Asking for a decision with the intention of
> immediately reopening the decision is not something I would support.
>>> 2) We are still working on proposals for longdesc
>> My completed issue 30  proposal has been ready since May 2011 right
>> after the accessibility task force came to consensus and endorsed it.
>> Call for Issue 30 counter proposals passed June 2011. You received one
>> proposal from Jonas and one from Matt Turvey.
>> You split Jonas' proposal from Issue 30 to make Issue 204 February 2012.
>> Jonas requested that 204 be surveyed before 30.
>> Are not issue 204 proposals ready to be surveyed?
> We have yet to ensure that all the proposals for issue 204 have been
> reviewed, or even that we have received all such proposals.
>>> 3) The chairs are jerks
>> No one has applied that label but you, Sam. I do not think you are a jerk.
> I will ask you to do one of two things: stop asking for an expedited
> decision on issue 30, or stop expecting to be able to immediately reopen
> that decision once it is issued.  I do not intend to support both requests.
>>> 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.
>> What I would ask is if it is decided that longdesc is included in
>> HTML5 via Issue 30, is there realistically enough time AFTER that
>> decision is announced for this working group to expand longdesc to
>> other attributes in the HTML5 timeline?
>> Or has Issue 30 been delayed for so long, it is now now impossible for
>> that to happen?
> The chairs are willing to allow the proposals to be amended up to the point
> of a survey, but not afterwards.  If you have something to propose, please
> do so now.  Beyond that, future work will go into future releases of HTML.
>> Best Regards,
>> Laura
> - Sam Ruby

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 11:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC