Re: Moving longdesc forward

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<> wrote:
> May be a list of acceptable formats should be given rather than
> 'structured host language content'.

What list?

There is the drawback that we bar long text alternatives from being presented
in some future superior format. Imagine in a decade, there's a
new "better" markup language like XHTML2 was supposed to be,
we wouldn't necessarily want to bar it from being used for long
descriptions for HTML content.

>> Note that if we impose such a constraint we will render some existing
>> longdesc use non-conforming. Three of Laura's examples of @longdesc
>> in the wild use plain text for long descriptions.
> HTML5 is not about blessing existing content.

I didn't say it was. Do we have any reason to say the above should be
non-conforming though? Is it inaccessible?

> I remind you that @longdesc all too often points to images.

Yes. I think under the suggested text @longdesc pointing to an image
is non-conforming because an image is not a long text alternative.

> Also, remember that accessibility and validity are orthogonal: may be above example works,
> just like many invalid things do.

Are the above examples inaccessible?

> Purpose of longdesc is structured content. We undermine its legitimacy,
> IMHO, if we water it out.

The purpose of @longdesc in the suggestex text is twofold:

    1. Structured text alternatives.
    2. Long text alternatives.

Long text alternatives, as opposed to structured text alternatives, can
be fairly represented by text/plain.

> Also, regarding rendering: if the UA can't expect a HTML - in the broad
> sense, how can it usefully present description in a new browsing
> context inside the same window? On an edge, we do not want that
> @longdesc becomes some kind of image presenter tool.

Not sure what you mean by the above.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 13:17:37 UTC