Hi everyone,
On 07.01.2015 12:19, I wrote:
> Besides: It does give us a competitive advantage over other browsers in
> the academic space and whereever other space longdesc may be used, or
> start being used once it is officially sanctioned by the W3C.
To reiterate: In certain areas like education
On Monday 2015-01-12 13:55 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I'd prefer us to voice opposition in the REC transition
> questionnaire. For reasons already stated in this thread, it's
> probably not a good use of time to put effort into writing a long
> essay for the reasons for opposition. Therefore, I
On Wednesday 2015-01-07 12:19 +0100, Marco Zehe wrote:
> On 07.01.2015 06:09, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
> >> The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by
> >> disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:13 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
> stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/
> HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc)
>
> There's a call for review to W
On 1/7/15 6:51 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> (Q: what part of openness = rejecting an attribute that many still
> want to see retained? That seems very "closed" to me...)
Don't confuse "open" with a democratic and/or consensus process. Open
means that our decision making process is as transparent as po
L. David Baron wrote:
>
> (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html .
> I'm also under the impression
Your "impression" is wrong, and even if Firefox were to drop its
implementation of @longdesc toda
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Marco Zehe wrote:
> My recommendation: Take a deep breath, and move on to more important things.
Yeah, I agree with this.
We should treat this as a learning experience and suck up having to
maintain the relatively small implementation.
/ Jonas
___
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html .
> I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's
> "implementation" of it as support fo
JW, Robin,
Le 7 janv. 2015 à 13:30, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> No, it's not. View Image Info is always present for images, View Description
> is only afforded if there is a longdesc attribute.
See here for example
http://nota-bene.org/Petit-photographe
--
Karl Dubost, Mozilla
http://www.la-gra
On 07/01/2015 13:23 , JW Clements wrote:
If "View Description" is the same as "View Image Info" then be advised
that I use this fairly frequently.
Therefore the claim that there's ZERO clicks is extremely inaccurate.
No, it's not. View Image Info is always present for images, View
Description
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:45:31 -0800
From: Justin Dolske
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 1/6/15 6:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
> The main downside I see i
Hi folks,
On 07.01.2015 06:09, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
>> The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by
>> disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better
>> proposal that we do support.
> May
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jet Villegas wrote:
> The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by
> disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better
> proposal that we do support.
As dbaron said that was also the main reason it got added. Fear-dr
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
> The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by
> disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better
> proposal that we do support.
>
Maybe Marco Zehe would be interested in removing it :-).
Rob
-
On 1/6/15 6:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by
disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better
proposal that we do support.
I'd be really curious to see if this is actually being used by anyone.
We're alrea
The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by
disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better
proposal that we do support.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> What downsides do you see?
>
> Gavin
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:43 P
What downsides do you see?
Gavin
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jet Villegas wrote:
> The current Firefox implementation via a context-menu item (presumably
> available to screen readers) seems innocuous to me. While I agree with many
> of the points objecting to the spec, I don't see much upsi
The current Firefox implementation via a context-menu item (presumably
available to screen readers) seems innocuous to me. While I agree with many
of the points objecting to the spec, I don't see much upside for us (and
plenty of downside) to deprecating the feature without a counter-proposal.
--J
On 2015-01-06 6:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
(I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html .
I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's
"implementation" of it as support for the spec, whic
W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the
stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation):
http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/
HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc)
There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla
is one) open until January 16
20 matches
Mail list logo
