- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:14:11 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>
Hi Leif and Geoff, Leif wrote: > default/not-deefault might not need to be specced, as such. Okay. What we have currently in the example spec text that I drafted doesn't mention default/not-default indicators. It says: "User agents should allow users to follow such description links. To obtain the corresponding description link, the value of the attribute must be resolved relative to the element. User agents should provide the user an option or preference to access the content via a device independent mechanism. For specific details consult the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG 2.0) and its implementation documents. Since an img element may be within the content of an a element, the user agent's mechanism in the user interface for accessing the "longdesc" resource of the former must be different than the mechanism for accessing the href resource of the latter." http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-spec-text.html Instead of "option or preference" should say "method or way". Would that be better? > So in a summary: No MAY. Rather a conditional MUST. Leif, Geoff, and everyone can you live with it being a SHOULD? > Plus you should > expand the spec tex with text for HTML5's Rendering section. What do other people think of this idea? Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 10 April 2011 14:14:40 UTC