Re: Moving longdesc forward

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis, Thu, 5 May 2011 07:49:58 +0100:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Leif Halvard Silli:

> One of the requirements the TF adopted was that authors need to
> be point to external long text alternatives. [...] it does not
> make sense to say this is required only if the long text 
> alternative has a structure that can be expressed with markup.

OTOH, to acknowledge 'authors need' to replace duplicate A11Y content 
with discrete links does not by necessity acknowledge that the this way 
linked content, could very well be non-HTML, if the author so wish.

> We don't appear to have consensus about what @longdesc is for.

You at least make a interesting proposal below.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis, Thu, 5 May 2011 08:49:12 +0100:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Leif Halvard Silli:

> What if we proposed a note to the end of
> "Note: User agents may not be able to open resources of a different
> format to the current document, or may have to resort to a plugin,
> so linking to resources in the same format are to be preferred.
> Links to resources in other formats are best described as such."

This would be OK for me. Perhaps you can file a bug about that right 
Leif H Silli

Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 12:21:51 UTC