- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 15:22:04 +0200
- To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli, Wed, 4 May 2011 14:45:08 +0200: > Geoff Freed, Wed, 4 May 2011 08:28:23 -0400: > >>> May be, w.r.t. 'structured host language', we could learn from the @src >>> definition and say that longdesc resources should be located inside >>> 'HTML and XML files with <html> as root element'. >> >> === >> GF: >> I’d be hesitant to put this restriction place because in some cases >> it imposes an extra step on the user. For example, if I want to use >> a plain-text document, or an accessible PDF, to deliver my longdesc, >> are you saying that I must first lead users to a structured document >> from which they select a link that *then* leads to the >> plain-text/PDF longdesc? > > Would you agree with me if we made it a SHOULD? > > To answer your question: Yes you would. OR you could paste the content > into HTML file and serve it as longdesc document. Or the longdesc > document could include a link to the PDF file, with an explanation > saying "See this link to PDF document with description, but note that > only first 3 pages are relevant." > > Can we make it a MUST still? HTML5 says that unless content is served as UTF-8, then links etc can not expected to always work. So, one way around the porridge (Norwegian expression) could be place a warning in the spec saying that users are likely to experience problems unless the longdesc resource is a html document or a xml document with html as root element. Better? -- Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 13:22:33 UTC