W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-30 longdesc

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:40:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4C63A55F.5050602@gmx.de>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 12.08.2010 01:56, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> ...
> The most important problem of the decision document is that it lacks a
> focus on semantics. One of the objectors, Lachlan, suggested early on
> that one could do something like this instead of using @longdesc:
> 	<a href=* rel=longdesc href=URL><img src=* alt=*></a>
> And Lachlan's proposal was spot on with regards to the *semantics* of
> @longdesc. It is the best alternative to @longdesc, so far. And, to be
> honest, I am considering accepting this decision, and instead focus on
> registering rel="longdesc" in the link type registry. The only problem
> I have, when I am considering the rel="longdesc" solution, is that your
> decision uses so much energy in stating that there is no use case, that
> I really wonder if if rel="longdesc" would have your support. Or,
> perhaps someone would point to your longdesc decision and reject
> rel="longdesc" on that ground. (Therefore, please clarify the
> contradiction I pointed to above.)
> ...

I think a longdesc relation type could be interesting, but I'm not 
convinced it's a good substitute for @longdesc (which we should keep).

The reason for this is that

   <a href=* rel=longdesc href=URL><img src=* alt=*></a>

only works when the <img> element doesn't already have a parent <a> 
element, which is something which is used a lot.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 07:40:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 August 2010 07:40:59 GMT