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 10:34:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnvU3csNb-h5E_TNSbUOaBK1exP563+b=sS19LvY=6ysw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>
Hi Chaals,

>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.

talked with mike smith and he agrees with you. not necessary

regards
Steve

On 16 November 2012 03:25, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
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 10:35:55 UTC

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