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

Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:33:22 -0800
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <834E04EA-1034-49C9-8E45-51D6E3AF3898@apple.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>

On Feb 27, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>> Re-reading it, your interpretation sounds more
>> plausible than the one I came up with.
>>
>> However, there's still
>>
>>> Checkpoint 1.1
>>> Provide a text equivalent for every non-text
>>> element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content).
>>
>> Wouldn't the the test suite would have to be updated
>> to recognize there was a new way of alternatively
>> providing text equivalents for non-text elements,
>> and also that "longdesc" was no longer recognized
>> as a valid way of providing a text equivalent?
>
> Actually, reading this more carefully, it seems you can author a
> conforming HTML5 document that meets this requirement because alt and
> longdesc are just examples of ways to provide a text equivalent for
> every non-text element.  Presumable superdesc (or whatever awesome
> accessibility feature we invent in the future) would also be fine for
> this requirement.

Indeed, it does not seem version-specific at all, and the way it is  
written does not exempt you from also meeting the conformance  
requirements of the relevant markup language. For example, it would  
not be conforming HTML4.01 to specify only longdesc and not alt.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 03:33:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT