W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Moving longdesc forward

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>
Message-ID: <20110504152204634608.a973ed8c@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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.

Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 13:22:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:55 UTC