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

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-30 longdesc

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:22:34 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100813022234394556.e599799f@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Julian Reschke, Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:40:15 +0200:
> 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.

I think I agree with your viewpoints here. 
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 00:23:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 August 2010 00:23:09 GMT