Re: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:04:16 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli  
<xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:

> Janina Sajka, Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:47:51 +0000:
>> Leif Halvard Silli writes:
>
>>> Question: Is there a chance that "we could do" @aria-describedat *now*?
>>> I am convinced that the chances for a amicable solution would increase
>>> greatly if one could move from talk to action with regard to
>>> @aria-describedat.
>>
>> You're asking the core question, imho. I wish we could simply say "yes"
>> and be done with it,
>
>> Unfortunately, ARIA-DescribedAt doesn't exist anywhere except on our "To
>> Do" list.
>
> So, the process is the reason we can't say 'use @aria-describedat' ...

No. The problem is that some important projects are not implementing the  
functionality described.

There are reasons for using longdesc as is: it's relatively well-known,  
it's relatively well described. There are reasons for preferring something  
that does the same with a different name: people get to say they were  
right about longdesc being broken as shown because we move to the new  
version, longdesc as currently specced in HTML4 doesn't apply as generally  
as required.

The specification can be done in a tiny amount of time if that is needed.  
But without implementor commitment, it just isn't needed very urgently.  
Understanding the basics can be done just as well by implementing  
longdesc...

If aria-describedat will get implemented, that is pretty much trumps for  
me. But if an ongoing discussion about it is an excuse to do nothing for a  
few extra weeks, I'd rather talk about something more productive.

frustrated

chaals

-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 18:30:31 UTC