- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:44:00 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Janina Sajka, Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:31:35 -0400: > Why not a 2-step process: > > 1.) Put longdesc back in the spec where it belongs > 2.) Consider what else it may apply to. > > So, I ask where the sober, smart strategy lies here. The question 'why not a two-step process' is not a fair representation of what I have proposed: I said explicitly that @longdesc on <table> - as such - should be delayed, but Laura chose not give that detail attention in her incarnation of the my though. [I don't know if I even support <table longdesc> - without any role=img applied - even as a second step.] So it is actually precisely a two-step process I have suggested. I just think that it would be consistent, if the first step covered any element of role=img. More here: http://www.w3.org/mid/20120314191734854175.2cf821c8@xn--mlform-iua.no -- Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 18:44:36 UTC