- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:05:54 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10455 --- Comment #31 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-08-30 18:05:54 --- (In reply to comment #28) >Statement: the choice between rel="longdesc" and rel="alternate" is more easily >made if one can use the anchor/area element for both link types. This is not an >argument _against_ @longdesc. I just think that if @rel="longdesc" exists, then >authors' thinking about these things will improve. I think especially the case >that @longdesc links are typically duplicated, is an argument in favor of >adding @rel="longdesc" to the HTML language, so that authors can get the same >feature by use of a normal link. rel="longdesc" couls possibly be useful when it comes to the use duplicate, redundant anchor links in combination with @longdesc. For example, if we have this: <a rel="longdesc" href="link-A"><img longdesc="link-A" src="*" alt="*"/></a> the perhaps JAWS, which do support @longdesc, would be able to avoid presenting the same link twice. it just has to compare the rel="longdesc" links against the @longdesc links and come up with a way to eliminate duplicate link presentation. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 30 August 2010 18:05:55 UTC