W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Expanding longdesc use

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:44:00 +0100
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, LĂ©onie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120314194400217353.0d4ca57a@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Janina Sajka, Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:31:35 -0400:

> Why not a 2-step process:
> 
> 1.)	Put longdesc back in the spec where it belongs
> 2.)	Consider what else it may apply to.
> 
> So, I ask where the sober, smart strategy lies here.

The question 'why not a two-step process' is not a fair representation 
of what I have proposed: I said explicitly that @longdesc on <table> - 
as such - should be delayed, but Laura chose not give that detail 
attention in her incarnation of the my though. [I don't know if I even 
support <table longdesc> - without any role=img applied - even as a 
second step.] 

So it is actually precisely a two-step process I have suggested. I just 
think that it would be consistent, if the first step covered any 
element of role=img.

More here:  
http://www.w3.org/mid/20120314191734854175.2cf821c8@xn--mlform-iua.no
-- 
Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 18:44:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:27 UTC