- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 02:53:04 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Janina Sajka, Fri, 9 Mar 2012 17:38:32 -0600: > Laura has reminded me what the problem is with "obsolete but conforming" > for longdesc. > > In my mind I think in terms of "deprecated," as commonly used in > standards development. However, if we need to specify the replacement in > order to apply "obsolete but conforming," we're clearly not there yet as > there's no ARIA-DescribedAt to point to, and will not be for some time > still. But that doesn't change the fact that you are in favor of conformance of 'the HTML attribute' because it is needed in order to bridge the gap from now and until 'an ARIA attribute' is ready. Hence, I hope that PF will provide us with at least a hint of when work on 'the feature' as 'an ARIA attribute' will start, so that we, e.g. in the poll [if it can't be added to the CP], can offer answers to Sam's questions[1], and thus argue as credible as possible for why the life of 'the HTML attribute' should be extended. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0182 -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2012 01:53:40 UTC