W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

RE: Notice of impending Formal Objection to Issue 30 Decision (@longdesc)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <038501cb3a9e$5e490a80$1adb1f80$@edu>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 
> As soon as HTML5 conformance checkers start to conformance check the
> longdesc attribute, it isn't historical anymore.

As of less than 24 hours ago, both the W3C Validator and Valdiator.nu
flagged the use of @longdesc as non-conformant. However, even though that
is the case, an otherwise perfectly conformant HTML5 document that
contains a @longdesc attribute and valid value string still "works" in
both Opera and Firefox: right click and off you go (at least on my
system), and the attribute and value continue to be exposed in the DOM of
the other major browsers and presumably available to Adaptive Technology
(according to the various DOM inspectors associated with IE, Safari and
Chrome).

Which begs another question: what 'penalty' will authors encounter if they
continue to use @longdesc in their HTML5 documents? If the answer is none
(save the inability to display a non-existent "conformance badge"), then I
know what I will continue to advocate and teach (users over authors,
authors over implementers, implementers over technical purity). 



JF
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 04:17:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:12 UTC