On 5/4/11 9:22 AM, "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: 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? === GF: I'm not crazy about MUST, and I'm also not crazy about making users select two links in order to receive certain types of long descriptions as it introduces a (or another) chance for users to get lost. However, I also would prefer that long descriptions be structured (for all the obvious reasons) so I can be happy with SHOULD. Geoff/NCAM Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 13:48:12 UTC