Hi John, and welcome back from Spain. > we were trying to make sure we'd accounted for instances where a single > text alternative would not be enough to convey the same information as > the non-text content. I think the simplicity of 1.1.1 is wonderful like this. 1.1.1 For non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives convey the same information. and see no reason why this doesn't cover the possibility of more complex text alternatives, including an identification plus a long description. But to even suggest that an "identification" is generally warranted is not a good idea. Jim Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/ 512-306-0931Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 16:17:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 02:51:26 GMT