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 14:26:46 +0200
To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100813142646191222.06577a1d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Karl Dubost, Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:14:32 -0400:
> 
> Le 12 août 2010 à 02:41, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
>> (2) New information that could lead to the issue being reopened.
> 
> "New information" is too vague. Given the strong opinion that some 
> HTML WG Members have on hard data, I would encourage the proponent of 
> longdesc attribute to collect these data.
> 
> * How many and which authoring tools give a UI for editing longdesc?
> * How many and which CMSes give a UI for editing longdesc?
> * How many and which search engines use and/or associate longdesc to 
> the original document it has been linked from?

In that regard, what about RDFa? @longdesc is simply a URL. And RDFa is 
about URLs, no? Does RDFa treat it as a URL? And if not, shouldn't it 
do that? 

The relevance of seeing @longdesc as shorthand notation for <a 
rel="longdesc" href=*"> again comes to mind. If RDFa treats longdesc as 
equivalent to a link with rel="longdesc", then a triple will be be 
produced.

Where is the correct place to file a bug against RDFa, to make it do 
this?

> * How many and which assistive technologies are using longdesc (full 
> browser, OS level, plugin, etc.)?
> 
> This information would create raw materials helping the discussion.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 12:27:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 August 2010 12:27:25 GMT