W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

RE: Notice of impending Formal Objection to Issue 30 Decision (@longdesc)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:03:33 +0200
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100813130333445363.7c6ca56c@xn--mlform-iua.no>
John Foliot, Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:17:02 -0700 (PDT):
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> As soon as HTML5 conformance checkers start to conformance check the
>> longdesc attribute, it isn't historical anymore.
> As of less than 24 hours ago, both the W3C Validator and Valdiator.nu
> flagged the use of @longdesc as non-conformant. However, even though that
> is the case, an otherwise perfectly conformant HTML5 document that
> contains a @longdesc attribute and valid value string still "works" in
> both Opera and Firefox: right click and off you go (at least on my
> system), and the attribute and value continue to be exposed in the DOM of
> the other major browsers and presumably available to Adaptive Technology
> (according to the various DOM inspectors associated with IE, Safari and
> Chrome).
> Which begs another question: what 'penalty' will authors encounter if they
> continue to use @longdesc in their HTML5 documents? If the answer is none

Thee *is* one serious penalty: there are no validators which tell them 
whether they user it the correct or the wrong way.

> (save the inability to display a non-existent "conformance badge"), then I
> know what I will continue to advocate and teach (users over authors,
> authors over implementers, implementers over technical purity). 
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 11:04:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:42 UTC