RE: Longdesc attribute for images

I can't speak for the W3C, but personally I think that, although
it is not yet (wishful thinking ?) supported by browsers, it is still
structurally preferable to have the longdesc attribute, rather than only
relying on the d-link. It makes it possible to have DOM scripting and
fancy CSS, and it's directly associated with the image/object/etc
itself, rather than only being associated by virtue of being a link
positioned directly after an image/object/etc.

Wouldn't it be nice if someone coded a little extension for
Netscape/Mozilla/Firebird to sanely handle longdesc ? Again, wishful
thinking perhaps...

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: yoan SIMONIAN [mailto:yoan.simonian@snv.jussieu.fr]
> Sent: 18 June 2003 14:45
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Longdesc attribute for images
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> I have a question about the longdesc attribute.
> WCAG 1.0 said in 1999 that this attribute is a priority1.
> It said too that a "d-link" is a solution.
> On my own experience, no graphical browser accept the 
> longdesc attribute for img or frames.  Lynx doesn't accept it too.
> 
> Is WAI recommandation is still to use this longdesc attribute or no ?
> If yes how can we justify this utilisation ?
> 
> thanks for your help
> 
> yoan SIMONIAN
> FRANCE.
> ###########o0°Association BrailleNet °0o ######
> cellule accessibilité
> 9 Quai Saint-Bernard
> 75 252 PARIS Cedex 5
> tel : 01 44 27 26 25
> http://www.braillenet.org/accessibilite
> http://www.accessiweb.org
> ################################################
> 2003-06-18 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 09:02:46 UTC