- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:57:24 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12243
Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jonas@sicking.cc
--- Comment #2 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> 2011-03-21 23:57:23 UTC ---
Wouldn't a better fix here be to change ARIA such that pointing
@aria-labelledby or @aria-describedby at a link should allow the reader to
follow said link?
No matter what the outcome of the @longdesc discussion is this seems like a
useful feature. This would allow a longer description on elements that doesn't
have @longdesc, as well as allow multiple descriptions, some of which are
longer.
As comment 0 states, even the people on the HTML WG (me included) made the
mistake of thinking that this was allowed. Given that the vast majority of the
documents on the web does not pass a HTML validator without errors, I think we
can safely assume adding another error to the validation will leave a vast
majority of documents unaffected.
So while adding an error to the validation will possibly cause some number of
people to go find an appropriate workaround, it will leave a larger set of
documents with an erroneous link. On the other hand, adding the ability to
point to a link would make a much much larger set of documents working better
for AT users, while at the same time preventing authors from having to find
workaround.
--
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, 21 March 2011 23:57:29 UTC