W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Marking up links to alternative versions of content

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:07:12 +0200
Message-Id: <p0624065bc2d90a7d28d1@[192.168.0.101]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 11:10 +1000 UTC, on 2007-08-03, Jason White wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:30:28PM +0200, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

[...]

>> <http://www.w3.org/mid/p06240643c2d6870fc339@%5B192.168.0.101%5D>[...]
>>
>> How would <alt> indicate what it is an alternative for?
>
> It would use @for=idref, as in your proposal.

Ah, right. I get it. <alt for=idref>equivalent</alt> would then remove the
need for the equiv attribute that I suggested. It would also not need @rel,
and thus remove the need to refine the definition of @rel. (Or am I
overlooking something?)

Yeah, that would seem to be easier to author and easier to implement.

A potential issue: thinking about the different types of situations in which
publishing of equivalents would need to be possibe, it would seem to be
necessary to allow <alt> as both block and inline. (Or not? I don't really
'see' that yet.)

[...]

> With all three proposals, there arises a need to specify how a user agent
> should treat multiple idrefs referring to the same element. As you suggested
> elsewhere, a type attribute could be introduced to distinguish different
> alternatives to the same media element.

Right. But unless I'm mistaken, type is currently only for MIME types. It
might not be wise to start allowing other sorts of values. Or would
"application/video+caption" and such be appropriate? I don't know enough
about MIME types to judge that.

> All of the above proposals are
> compatible with a policy of allowing only one alternative to be associated
> with any given media element (the first alternative, in document tree order,
> would be treated as a fallback, with the remainder of such alternatives being
> ignored, i.e., as though @irrelevant were in effect).

I can't follow. Why would multiple <alt> elements referring to the same id
through @for, not be possible?


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 17:12:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC