- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:22:34 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Julian Reschke, Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:40:15 +0200: > On 12.08.2010 01:56, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> ... >> The most important problem of the decision document is that it lacks a >> focus on semantics. One of the objectors, Lachlan, suggested early on >> that one could do something like this instead of using @longdesc: >> <a href=* rel=longdesc href=URL><img src=* alt=*></a> >> And Lachlan's proposal was spot on with regards to the *semantics* of >> @longdesc. It is the best alternative to @longdesc, so far. And, to be >> honest, I am considering accepting this decision, and instead focus on >> registering rel="longdesc" in the link type registry. The only problem >> I have, when I am considering the rel="longdesc" solution, is that your >> decision uses so much energy in stating that there is no use case, that >> I really wonder if if rel="longdesc" would have your support. Or, >> perhaps someone would point to your longdesc decision and reject >> rel="longdesc" on that ground. (Therefore, please clarify the >> contradiction I pointed to above.) >> ... > > I think a longdesc relation type could be interesting, but I'm not > convinced it's a good substitute for @longdesc (which we should keep). > > The reason for this is that > > <a href=* rel=longdesc href=URL><img src=* alt=*></a> > > only works when the <img> element doesn't already have a parent <a> > element, which is something which is used a lot. I think I agree with your viewpoints here. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 00:23:07 UTC