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

Re: Marking up alternative versions of content

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:49:52 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240612c2dc783ec1b6@[192.168.0.101]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 23:26 -0500 UTC, on 2007-08-05, Robert Burns wrote:

> On Aug 4, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

[... how to allow for multpe equivalents through <element longdesc="URL">]

> My thought was to have a fallback container that would hold multiple
> sibling alternate equivalents. Something like:
>
> <img longdesc='theFallbackForThisImage' src='thisImage' >
> Š
> <!-- either in the same document or another document -->
> Š
> <fallback id='theFallbackForThisImage' >
> 	<alt type='ContentType' subtype='some-subtype-expression'  title='' >
> 	</alt>
> 	<alt type='application/xml'
[... etc.]

Ah, right.

Hm... Actually, this approach looks like a list to me, which suggests that it
wouldn't actually need two new elements at all, but just one new "alternates
list" element:

<table longdesc="#fallbackforthisimage">
<!-- either in the same document or another document -->
<alt id="fallbackforthisimage">
   <li type="text/html" title="prose">marked up prose</li>
   <li type="video/ogg"
title="presentation"><video><object></object</video></li>
</alt>

(Note that I called the element alt. I mean it like your suggested
<fallback>, but if only a single new element is needed, naming it <alt> would
seem preferable given the definitions of "equivalent", "alternate" and
"fallback".)


Still, not requiring such grouping does seem more author-friendly to me. As
far as that aspect is concerned, I'm leaning more towards having the
alternate refer to the 'main' element.


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 07:53:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:03 GMT