- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:56:49 +0000
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > > On 30 Nov 2008, at 16:40, Pentasis wrote: > >> I notice that it says in the spec under the img-section: >> >> "There has been some suggestion that the longdesc attribute from >> HTML4, or some other mechanism that is more powerful than alt="", >> should be included. This has not yet been considered." >> >> May I ask why it has not been considered (yet)? > > Because there's an issues list of several thousand issues, and as such > not all issues have been considered. If we could do everything at once > we'd have a spec instantly. :) Perhaps also worth noting that there's already been a quite epic amount of discussion of LONGDESC, if you care to search the archives. I suppose the text might be more accurate if it said "yet been decided". A rough summary of the currently dominant view in WHATWG would be that visible descriptions are more useful than invisible descriptions and that in any case LONGDESC is poisoned by real-world abuse ( http://blog.whatwg.org/the-longdesc-lottery ). -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 30 November 2008 11:56:49 UTC