- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 20:16:21 +0200
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Tantek Çelik, Sat, 7 May 2011 09:51:57 -0700: > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 18:36, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: >> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: >>> >>> Here's Tantek's objection from the poll: >>> >>> "[@longdesc] is one of the worst forms of invisible metadata >>> or "dark data" which are known to rot and become inaccurate >>> over time (see: meta keywords, RDF in comments, sidefiles, etc.)." >> >> Links rot; this is a known problem. > > To be clear - the data/content rot I refer to is *not* the link rot problem. That might be what you had in mind in your poll comment - however w.r.t. your longdesc lottery article ... [...] > In the case of "longdesc" - the content rot scenario is that a web > author changes the image (src) to point to something else, but forgets > to update the longdesc to point to a new description because it is > hidden metadata and isn't apparent as being "wrong" when the author > refreshes the page in their browser to check it. ... when you prepared your "longdesc lottery" article, did you came across any longdesc links where it was obvious that the @longdesc pointed to an image description, but where the image description did not matter anymore because the img's @src had been updated and now was pointing to another image? > Was there already a debate somewhere between longdesc="" vs. > rel="longdesc" ? If you look at the change proposal Laura has been authoring, then yes, the use of anchor elements is discussed - as are many other alternatives to @longdesc. -- Leif H Silli
Received on Saturday, 7 May 2011 18:17:04 UTC