21341 2013-03-19 22:31:22 +0000 Remove note that longdesc is obsolete for img 2013-09-20 16:13:20 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features a11y, a11y_text-alt P1 major --- 1 chaals robin eoconnor faulkner.steve hans.hillen mark.sadecki+w3c mike pcotton public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking robin rubys silviapfeiffer1 public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 84663 0 chaals 2013-03-19 22:31:22 +0000 I'm not sure what the exact process is for this, nor the right target (and the relevant product might well be HTML.Next). But there is a valid spec for the longdesc attribute on the img element, so this use of the attribute should be removed from the "authors must not use" section. 84709 1 silviapfeiffer1 2013-03-20 08:47:01 +0000 From a process point of view I think this will happen when this extension spec is merged into either HTML5.0 or HTML5.1 or even both. I think it's a bit early now. 84725 2 chaals 2013-03-20 11:04:01 +0000 Hmm. I think there is a difference between saying what the final state is - I agree we are way too early for that - and saying "users must not use it" which is what the HTML spec currently says. If that statement remains, I think it should at least point to the extensions spec since they are in straight contradiction. 84726 3 robin 2013-03-20 11:09:09 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > Hmm. I think there is a difference between saying what the final state is - > I agree we are way too early for that - and saying "users must not use it" > which is what the HTML spec currently says. > > If that statement remains, I think it should at least point to the > extensions spec since they are in straight contradiction. Yes, the agreed plan was that we'd point to it and move towards validity. I'll look into handling that. 84753 4 silviapfeiffer1 2013-03-20 22:24:24 +0000 fair enough :-) 88210 5 eoconnor 2013-05-24 17:02:33 +0000 I actually think we should keep this note. The validator(s) can simply ignore the note if they consider the HTML Image Description Extension spec to be an applicable specification. 93245 6 rubys 2013-09-11 13:39:51 +0000 Ping? 93574 7 mark.sadecki+w3c 2013-09-19 15:19:02 +0000 I believe the following quote from Plan 2014 [1] applies to this situation and should clear up any doubt that longdesc should not be listed as obsolete: > To prevent unnecessary confusion, the HTML5 specification will drop explicit > indications that any given extension is obsolete once an extension specification > exists that has been published as a FPWD. Additionally, the W3C staff will watch > for drafts being published and keep the W3C validator up to date as appropriate. [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#plan 93601 8 robin 2013-09-20 16:13:20 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: Removed longdesc from the list of obsolete attributes. Rationale: There's an extension spec for that. https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/40f9200c1989dd9c3b99cc51be3087339a88eb45