- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:36:28 +0100
- To: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Jason White, Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:36:42 +1100: > but I still think that if one > wants to overcome the inadequacies of <img> (in so far as this can be > done), @longdesc is the best option so far suggested. With regard to 'best option so far suggested': The option we don't pick, will not die. Because ARIA is not going away, so that will remain an option. Which means that we have to improve it as much as we can, even if we do include @longdesc, not? When it comes to @longdesc, then that idea is said to be so good, that they will include something like @aria-longdesc in the next version of ARIA - they say ... @longdesc really is a case where we could have needed the deprecation institute - both to save the 'house peace' and to solve some - perhasp - tempoary problems. However, in HTML5, the deprecation tool itself seems to have been deprecated ... > Without UA implementors involved in this discussion, I think > predictions about what they might or might not choose to support > can be speculative at best. Well, they do seem to wanna implement the idea with @hidden + @aria-describedby. That's were the energy and focus currently is - because that solution borders on similar problems that they are solving. > I also wonder whether this decision > would be different if proponents of accessibility offered to write > the implementations and submit patches to the free and open-source > UAs. That way, the organizational sponsors of those projects wouldn't > have to commit resources to doing the work, and the discussion would > then be entirely a question of the merits or otherwise of the > proposed changes. To offer patches, sounds like a nice idea - in fact, they perhaps like patcher better than ideas. But I'm not optimistic - there seems to be many 'code guards'. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 02:36:59 UTC