W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: Longdesc D-link

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:24:45 +1000 (EST)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
cc: WAI Markup Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980914161819.8585C-100000@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
I agree with Jason that ultimately IMG and LONGDESC are inferior to 
OBJECT (and would be more so if UAs could expose the content of a 
rendered OBJECT on request, as well as providing for a LONGDESC (or that 
could be the mechanism, although it would not provide consistency as well)

Therefore I recommended that D-links be the strategy until OBJECT takes 
over, since it seemed unlikely that LONGDESC will be implemented any 
faster than OBJECT.

However one of the difficulties which OBJECT raises is that people who 
set up their browsers need to know about plug-ins and file types, or 
trust their browser to work it all out for them. I assume that those who 
go down the Microsoft road will be offered a product which sniffs out 
every Microsoft beastie and connects them all together, but fond as I am 
of some Microsoft products I am also keen on a diversity of browsers as a 
principle, and the use of OBJECT (or of any multimedia for that matter) 
increases the complexity, and therefore further removes the average user 
from really knowing what the heck is going on (much the same as I don't 
really know much about what my car is doing as I drive it)

Charles McCathieNevile
Received on Monday, 14 September 1998 02:48:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT