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

Re: Proof of growth of acceptance/implementation - longdesc

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:21:26 +0200
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100922092126811110.5836026d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis, Wed, 22 Sep 2010 07:48:08 +0100:
> On 22 Sep 2010, at 07:40, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Additional point: If HTML5 - already - been defining @longdesc, then he 
>> could not so easily have gotten away with that. At least, that's my 
>> conviction.
> 
> Maybe if it defined it to exclude images?

I don't know how far it would  be possible to come, but I filed a bug, 
during the poll, which said that HTMl5 validators should check the 
longdesc url in the first place and also check the mime type.

> I suspect, for his audience, what the spec says is less important 
> than what the validator does. It would have been a slight deterrent 
> if the HTML validator opened the referenced long description and 
> complained it was an image.

He landed on this solution _after_ he had discussed with Ian. That is 
not to say that Ian recommended him to use @longdesc. But I suspect 
that if HTML5 had been clear on @longdesc, then there is a chance that 
message had had an impact.

Drew's example really has to be looked away from when the chairs 
eventually are re-evaluating the case: Any increase in misuse of 
@longdesc is partly happening because of our, the HTMLwg's - lack of 
will to define @longdesc.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 07:22:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:14 UTC