- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 15:53:57 +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>
Geoff Freed, Wed, 4 May 2011 09:46:56 -0400: >> 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. I think if we put it something like I said last, then we effectively have a SHOULD. Agree? What I refer to: >> 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 13:54:30 UTC