W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:39:05 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0910271339i6b7fe444i756971ec2e857302@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>>>> However, as the rest of my letter hinted, @longdesc and aria-describedby
>>>> are
>>>> different. @longdesc has a much more fixed behavior than aria-describedby
>>>> has - and is much more single purposed than aria-describedby. See the
>>>> other
>>>> replies in this thread. The primary specialty of longdesc is simply that
>>>> it
>>>> is only meant for IMG, FRAME and IFRAME - the rest of its inherited
>>>> behavior
>>>> follows from that.
>>> I agree that @longdesc and @aria-describedby aren't exactly the same.
>>> However they are very similar.
>> Everything with a link is "similar". But normally, if one element can take
>> IDREFS only and another can take a single, complete URI, only, then we don't
>> consider them similar.
> If two features are designed to solve the same problem, then I think
> they are similar enough that having both is a loss for all involved
> parties.

Sorry, this was an overly broad statement. I should say that if two
features are both designed to solve the same problem, then we should
absolutely look at if both are really needed. In this case I see no
reason to keep both.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 20:39:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:53 UTC