W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: example spec text for longdesc

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:51:49 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikROj1KiEPUjjPxBTOS9F5YByMSGWe-zjASGZqb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi  Steve, Jonas, Henri, Ian, and Everyone,

> Chaals, for the time being I removed your spec text and linked to
> Steve's spec text for the details section of the longdesc change
> proposal to reinstate longdesc into HTML [2].

Steve, for the time being, I also linked the example spec text that I
put together to the details section of the Change Proposal to
reinstate longdesc into HTML.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc#Main_Spec_Changes:

We might end up with some type of a combination of the two.

Henri, how difficult would it be for conformance checkers to inspect a
longdesc URL and issue a warning if it suspects that the description
resource is unlikely to contain a description of the image (i.e., if
the URL is an empty string, or points to the same URL as the src
attribute, or if it is indicative of something other than a URL?  And
how difficult would it be for conformance checkers to issue errors if
the longdesc URL has certain file suffixes, such as .gif, .jpeg, .png
etc.)?

I put this as a "should" in the spec text (first bullet):
http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-spec-text.html
Would it be better as a "may"? How would you improve that spec text so
that conformance checkers could help more people get longdesc right?

Jonas, How difficult would it be for user agents to allow users to
follow longdesc links and provide the user some kind of an option or
preference to access the content via a device independent mechanism? I
seem to recall that you said it is difficult for Firefox. I put as a
"should" in the spec text (second bullet) at:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-spec-text.html
Would it be better as a "may"? How would you improve that spec text so
that user agents would indeed implement longdesc?

Ian, I would really appreciate your advice on that spec text too. What
is technically wrong with it?

Thank you all very much.

Best Regards,
Laura
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 12:53:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC