W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: 1.1 suggestion

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:41:26 +1000
Message-ID: <16585.10726.171383.747729@jdc.local>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Joe Clark writes:
 > > Secondly, if the description is "explicitly associated" with the
 > > non-text content,
 > We are going to need tighter phrasing than that. "Explicitly associated" 
 > could be interpreted to mean the addition of actual text on the page 
 > saying something like "Look at the bottom of the page for the description 
 > of this image," without a link. Sort of like people "marking" the language 
 > of text by writing "The following text is in Spanish."

That's why I suggested earlier "explicitly associated in markup or a
data model" to clarify the point. If the qualification is omitted,
then it will need to be included in a definition of "explicit association".
 > I've never been wild about the presumed synonym "programmatically," but it 
 > could work here.
We could say that the association between a text
equivalent/alternative and the corresponding non-text content can be
programmatically determined. This is a very cumbersome form of
expression however, which I would rather avoid.
Any suggestions for better wording?
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 23:41:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC