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

Re: review of HTML5 image description extension - intial thoughts

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 03:25:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=nqzwqV_Vf+z99BvQDMb1=c+owskPDYE6k8etDd39mdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>
On 16 November 2012 02:07, Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com> wrote:

> **
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:05:40 +0100, Steve Faulkner <
> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> anoither suggestion: add a 'file a bug' link to the buzilla component for
> the spec
>
>
> Done.
>
>
> On 9 November 2012 10:10, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> an initial comment is that I suggest conformance checker advice around
>> the issue of valid URLs be added.
>
>
> I didn't do this at the moment.
>
> The nu mark validation service does some error checking on href values , I
>> don't see any issue with extending those checks to cover longdesc values
>
>
> You mean something like "conformance checkers should check that the URL is
> a URL"? I'm not convinced that's an important thing to say, because I think
> it is obvious.
>

To my knowledge the content of the longdesc attribute has not been checked
by the W3C validation tools to date, so it may not be so obvious to
conformance checker implementers, besides having a few words of informative
guidance on the subject cannot hurt.


>
> What do folks think?
>
> another suggestion is that a best practices document be developed on the
>> provision of long descriptions be developed that can be referenced from the
>> spec itself and from the conformance checker when an error is triggered due
>> to above (or any other syntax longdesc related errors).
>>
>
> I'd be happy to link if we have such a document. I didn't, because I
> believe there is a lot of guidance available all over the web, and that
> holding up this spec for a document that doesn't exist isn't really
> necessary work. So in the draft I claimed it was out of scope. But I note
> that Leonie also commented that would be a useful thing.
>
> So, what do we want to do about this question?
>

this is not something that has to be dealt with before FPWD, but I do
 think that it should be considered as the spec matures.


>
> Thanks for the review. I published an update:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Chaals - standards declaimer
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 03:26:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:32 UTC