- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:59:52 +1100
- To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTMLAccessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:22 AM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > > As Chaals pointed out almost 3 years ago, we can go through the whole > process to emerge at the end with something that is essentially what > @longdesc is today, but with a shiny new name. If after such an exercise we end up exactly at the same spot where @longdesc is now, then indeed there is no purpose in giving it a new name. However, it is an assumption that may not hold true. Instead, all it achieves is that we keep spinning in circles. Is it really that important to hold on to the name? Let's just get started on redefining what we want, from scratch, without any prejudice as to where we will end, and see where the journey takes us. If we end up in the same place and it's all achievable with @longdesc, then we can still put that label back on the effort. Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 04:00:45 UTC