- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:21:01 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Lachlan, - public-html-a11y On 3/25/11, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > On 2011-03-25 13:03, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 07:51 -0500, Laura Carlson wrote: >>> 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.)? >> >> Easy though bogus as far as the theory of URLs go. (In theory, you >> should deference the URL and check the content type, but that would make >> conformance dependent on external resources, which is kinda >> undesirable.) > > It's completely bogus in the case of MediaWiki, for example. Take this > randomly picked image from the front page of Wikipedia today. The URL > ends in .jpg, but it's to the image's summary page, not the image > itself, and so this could actually be a perfectly acceptable URL for a > longdesc (if the page actually contained a suitable description). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Giacomo_di_Rialto_%28Facade%29.jpg Based on your and Henri's feedback I deleted the sentence, "Conformance checkers should issue errors if the longdesc URL has certain file suffixes, such as .gif, .jpeg, .png etc.)", Thank you very much. I could put something like it back back if people think it would be useful to have it as a warning. Is it better without it? Lachlan, if longdesc is to be reinstated into HTML, do you have other thoughts on how to improve the spec text at: http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-spec-text.html Ideas for improvement are very welcome. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 17:21:35 UTC