- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:04:16 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Sam, Thanks for your email. I asked: >> if the HTML Chairs now have a >> concrete action plan with a timetable and concrete dates to expedite >> ISSUE-30. Sam, Paul, and Maciej, do you have a plan? If so what is it? What I read in your response [1] does not answer my questions. It deflects and seems ambiguous with no clear timetable. If the chairs are stalling the issue in hopes that new information will emerge, why did they mislead us into believing that they would to expedite the issue? This is very difficult to reconcile. > So the task we face is eliminating all alternatives... If that is the situation, let's obsolete <p>. We can all use <div> instead. > As to aria-describedAt Pitting aria-describedby, aria-describedAt, or any other solution and longdesc against each other is counter-productive to accessibility. It should not be an either/or situation. HTML has native, built-in long description semantics with longdesc. Keeping it core to the language keeps valuable semantics in HTML. The idea of HTML obsoleting longdesc, a native semantic attribute, and shirking off the responsibility of providing long description semantics to ARIA, a bridging technology, is entirely backward. ARIA should be used to augment missing native semantics of HTML as necessary, not as an excuse to kill and to replace them. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0391.html -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 17:04:49 UTC