- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:19:58 +0200
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) 2008-09-09 20.07:
>
> Isn't "long replacement" exactly what
> fallback content is in <object> ?
I think so.
> David Poehlman wrote:
>> I was trying to say that @longdesc should contain an indepth
>> description and not be used as replacement. We don't have anything
>> for long replacement that I know of.
If one used an <img> due to lack of relevant markup, e.g lack of
markup for diagrams or maps, then @longdesc can link to an indepth
description instead. Hence, we could say that we use @longdesc
because a real alt is not available. ;-)
In that sense I agree. However, had we used <object> and not
<img>, then that description would gone into the <object> fallback
instead. Hence @longdesc is still nothing but normal fallback.
Now, let's say that the "HP site map" of the HTML 4 example was
presented not as a graphic but as an animation (taking you through
all rooms at the HP estate) in a <video> element, then we would
have a case, where @longdesc could theoretically play an equal
role for <video> as in for <img>.
However, if <video> itself could present text fallback the way Jim
proposed it [1]:
<video><source src=animation.mov>
<source src=#textversion></video>
<a id=textversion href=page.html>Map with description</a>
Then, would it still be a point in having a separate @longdesc for
the offering of an "indepth description"? I don't think so.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Sep/0288.html
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 02:20:59 UTC