- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:15:09 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/20/2012 06:51 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Sep 20, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 09/20/2012 05:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> Whether or not the top 10,000 web sites home pages is a target market >>> for longdesc is not relevant to the definition of HTML. The Web is >>> not that shallow, and HTML is expected to handle everyone's needs. >>> I don't know why it is even being considered a rational objection. >> >> It is relevant given the details of the proposal being offered: >> >> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-rendering2.html >> >> (Changes are marked with <ZZZ>...</ZZZ>) > > I am not seeing the relevance. Those are examples of how a UA might render > a longdesc, if such an option were chosen by the user. Immediately preceding the examples are expectations for UAs. Including in those expectations is presenting the option to the user. [snip] > Regardless, I would strenuously object to any conformance requirement, > on any element or attribute, that is based on what kind of page is > intended. The position that a validator should indicate via warnings that a particular sequence of markup that it encounters is not one that is widely interoperable is one that I would reject out of hand. That being said, I can see how some would see that as less than desirable, and to those people I would suggest that options that lead to authoring expectations matching reality would be preferred. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 23:15:36 UTC