This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Please list longdesc in HTML5's table of attributes: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/index.html#attributes-1 And link to its specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/ Thank you.
(In reply to Laura Carlson from comment #0) > Please list longdesc in HTML5's table of attributes: > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/index.html#attributes-1 > > And link to its specification: > http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/ Actually, I don't think that it makes sense (or, in fact, scales) to have this table reference all that is created in extension specs. In fact, considering this topic more it would make more sense in my humble opinion to also remove the longDesc IDL attribute and have it be defined properly in the longdesc specification.
(In reply to Robin Berjon from comment #1) > (In reply to Laura Carlson from comment #0) > > Please list longdesc in HTML5's table of attributes: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/index.html#attributes-1 > > > > And link to its specification: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/ > > Actually, I don't think that it makes sense (or, in fact, scales) to have > this table reference all that is created in extension specs. In fact, > considering this topic more it would make more sense in my humble opinion to > also remove the longDesc IDL attribute and have it be defined properly in > the longdesc specification. Hi Robin, Where in the HTML5 spec would you consider it more appropriate to let people know that we have a longdesc HTML5 attribute? Right now it is missing. Listing it somewhere more appropriate in the HTML5 spec would be fine with me. Thank you.
(In reply to Laura Carlson from comment #2) > Where in the HTML5 spec would you consider it more appropriate to let people > know that we have a longdesc HTML5 attribute? Right now it is missing. > Listing it somewhere more appropriate in the HTML5 spec would be fine with > me. My point is that there is no reason for it, or any other extension, to be listed in the HTML specification. The point is to move towards greater orthogonality and to be more nimble, more web-friendly, and less towards centralisation of power on a single specification.
(In reply to Robin Berjon from comment #3) > (In reply to Laura Carlson from comment #2) > > Where in the HTML5 spec would you consider it more appropriate to let people > > know that we have a longdesc HTML5 attribute? Right now it is missing. > > Listing it somewhere more appropriate in the HTML5 spec would be fine with > > me. > > My point is that there is no reason for it, or any other extension, to be > listed in the HTML specification. The point is to move towards greater > orthogonality and to be more nimble, more web-friendly, and less towards > centralisation of power on a single specification. Hi Robin, Your phopspphy would seem to make sense if that phopspphy was: 1. Actively promoted by the HTML WG and HTML5. Is it? 2. Applied evenly thoughout HTML5. However, HTML5 promotes and links to other specs. For example: <quote> "Authors may use the ARIA role and aria-* attributes on HTML elements, in accordance with the requirements described in the ARIA specifications" http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#wai-aria Authors are encouraged to make use of the following documents for guidance on using ARIA in HTML beyond that which is provided in this section: Using WAI-ARIA in HTML http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria-in-html/master/index.html WAI-ARIA 1.0 Authoring Practices http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/" <unquote> It seems to me that linking to the longdesc spec from HTML5 would help to alleviate centralization of power on the single HTML5 specification.
(In reply to Laura Carlson from comment #4) > 1. Actively promoted by the HTML WG and HTML5. Is it? Yes, the HTML WG has consistently called for greater splitting of the spec into more parts. We haven't been able to carry that as far out as I would have liked for 5.0 but it is certainly in the cards for 5.1. > 2. Applied evenly thoughout HTML5. However, HTML5 promotes and links to > other specs. Yes, but that is currently more or less haphazard and not entirely helpful. Most of those links are buried in the spec in a way that does not make them maximally helpful. Mike and I are working on a new entry point for the full set of specifications that we believe is much more readable and fairer to all involved. Work on 5.0 is taking time away from it, but it will eventually get done. I am leaving this bug open until then so that you can close it if you are indeed satisfied with the new approach.
Hi Robin, (In reply to Robin from comment #5) >> 1. Actively promoted by the HTML WG and HTML5. Is it? > Yes, the HTML WG has consistently called for greater splitting of the > spec into more parts. We haven't been able to carry that as far out as > I would have liked for 5.0 but it is certainly in the cards for 5.1. It seems like the opposite has been done with ARIA. Will all ARIA verbiage and links be split out of HTML5? I will be very interested to see how the HTML working group and HTML5 specification actively promotes the longdesc specification. >> 2. Applied evenly thoughout HTML5. However, HTML5 promotes and links >> to other specs. > Yes, but that is currently more or less haphazard and not entirely > helpful. Most of those links are buried in the spec in a way that does > make them maximally helpful. > Mike and I are working on a new entry point for the full set of > specifications that we believe is much more readable and fairer to all > involved. Work on 5.0 is taking time away from it, but it will > eventually get done. I am leaving this bug open until then so that you > can close it if you are indeed satisfied with the new approach. Thank you, Robin. Working it out in an equitable manner is what is needed. I'll leave this bug open to see how fairly the HTML Working Group and the HTML5 spec handles the situation.
(In reply to Robin Berjon from comment #5) > > Mike and I are working on a new entry point for the full set of > specifications that we believe is much more readable and fairer to all > involved. Work on 5.0 is taking time away from it, but it will eventually > get done. I am leaving this bug open until then so that you can close it if > you are indeed satisfied with the new approach. Re-opened until we know what the resolution is.
> (In reply to John Foliot from comment #7) > Re-opened until we know what the resolution is. Thanks, John!
Hi all, it was I who closed the bug, obviously somewhat prematurely. I have no problem with re-opening
(In reply to steve faulkner from comment #9) > Hi all, > > it was I who closed the bug, obviously somewhat prematurely. I have no > problem with re-opening Thank you Steve.
Still got to figure the bikeshed fu for this… laeving open for now.
HTML5.1 Bugzilla Bug Triage: Won't fix. Per HTML5 the longdesc attribute is obsolete. However, there is a new document that now extends HTML5 for longdesc (https://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/). If this resolution is not satisfactory, please copy the relevant bug details/proposal into a new issue at the W3C HTML5 Issue tracker: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/new where it will be re-triaged. Thanks!
(In reply to Arron Eicholz from comment #12) > HTML5.1 Bugzilla Bug Triage: Won't fix. Per HTML5 the longdesc attribute is > obsolete. However, there is a new document that now extends HTML5 for > longdesc (https://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/). > > If this resolution is not satisfactory, please copy the relevant bug > details/proposal into a new issue at the W3C HTML5 Issue tracker: > https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/new where it will be re-triaged. Thanks! Hi Arron, I believe you are mistaken - the HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc) at: https://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/ makes the @longdesc attribute a now fully conformant attribute in HTML5 (as per Plan 2014: https://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html) and thus, also as part of HTML5.1 This is/was a compromise position taken with the then HTML5 WG and the Chairs, and as HTML5.1 is intended to supersede HTML5.0 then all new extensions released since then are in scope. (This also includes MSE/EME if they are finalized in time for the HTML5.1 release) I am reopening this as still requiring resolution based on historical context and promises made. If HTML5 *still* states that #@longdesc is obsolete, then a bug needs to be filed *ON THAT*.
The attribute is no longer on the obsolete list (and hasn't been for a while). There is a currently general issue - https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/170 - to track things that are specified in extensions, a list that includes at least longdesc, RDFa, and microdata (although it's only a note, it's very widely used)
Actually specifically picked up in https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/258