- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:16:32 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10455 --- Comment #39 from Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com> 2010-08-30 22:16:31 --- (In reply to comment #37) > (1) The example above represent millions of images. Is it smart to let a > substantially less common usecase stand in the way of the most common usecase? When the less common use case represents a fundamental feature of hypertext? Yeah, kinda. I think all of the proposals presented so far are complicating the creation of long descriptions to the point that just reverting to visible D-links will be the standard case. I doubt that any assistive technology will implement support for markup so complex that it's likely to be broken in many cases. > I want to point out that for the code example above, the only link text > is the @alt text. Thus the alt text has to serve a double cause: as link > text and as @alt text. That's the common case for alt text today. I don't know what problem this solves. If there's alternate content that's not expressed in @alt, I believe it should still be bound within the element, not in an <a> wrapper. Anchors are an already well-defined semantic, and I don't like the idea of telling authors that you can either link an image or provide a long description simply in the name of expediency. -- 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 22:16:33 UTC