W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Moving longdesc forward

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 15:53:57 +0200
To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110504155357972563.e2f5154d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Geoff Freed, Wed, 4 May 2011 09:46:56 -0400:

>> GF:
> I’m not crazy about MUST, and I’m also not crazy about making users 
> select two links in order to receive certain types of long 
> descriptions as it introduces a (or another) chance for users to get 
> lost.  However, I also would prefer that long descriptions be 
> structured (for all the obvious reasons) so I can be happy with 
> SHOULD.  

I think if we put it something like I said last, then we effectively 
have a SHOULD. Agree? What I refer to:

>> So, one way around the porridge (Norwegian expression) could be place a
>> warning in the spec saying that users are likely to experience problems
>> unless the longdesc resource is a html document or a xml document with
>> html as root element.
-- 
Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 13:54:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:38 GMT