- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 06:43:45 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Hi Henri and Everyone, On 3/26/11, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Leif, > >>> Based on Lachlan's 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.)", >> >> +1 This wasn't as simple as I must admit that I thought it to be. >> >>> I could put something like it back if people think it would be >>> useful to have it as a warning. Do you think that the example >>> spec text is better with or without it? >> >> Instead of suffixes, we could require the @longesc URL to point to a >> #fragment ID. > > Thanks for your all of your input on this Leif. > > Henri, Lachlan, and Aryeh, if longdesc is reinstated into HTML do you > think this would be a good idea? I have been thinking about this a bit. Leif's idea does have merits. The biggest one is that it would be a consistent rule for authors and tools. But only a very small portion of the longdesc use in the wild use on-page anchors. We have just four examples out of all of them in the research [1]. So it is not consistent in that respect. Existing content correctly using longdesc without an #anchor would be invalid. Here is an idea...maybe we could add something like "unless the document contains an id that matches a longdesc attribute #anchor" to the example spec text [2]? So the spec text could read something like: "Conformance checkers and authoring tools should inspect the URL and issue a warning if they suspect 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 unless the document contains an id that matches a longdesc#anchor, or if it is indicative of something other than a URL.)" Henri, could that spec text work for conformance checking tools? Do you think that requiring #anchor on all longdesc attributes would be better? Lachlan, and Aryeh what do you think? Ideas for improving the spec text are greatly appreciated. Thank you. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html#onpageanchor [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-spec-text.html -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 27 March 2011 11:44:18 UTC