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

Re: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 03:58:12 +0200
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Message-ID: <20110506035812233325.a103912d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Richard Schwerdtfeger, Thu, 5 May 2011 16:02:10 -0500:
> Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote on 05/05/2011 12:09:33

>> Rich, as Ben pointed out the 10.6.1 rendering section of the spec is
>> informative not normative.

Not 100% accurate, perhaps:

]] For the purposes of conformance for user agents designated as 
supporting the suggested default rendering, the term "expected" in this 
section has the same conformance implications as the RFC2119-defined 
term "must".[[ 


]]Visual user agents that support the suggested default rendering
User agents, whether interactive or not, may be designated (possibly as 
a user option) as supporting the suggested default rendering defined by 
this specification.
User agents that are designated as supporting the suggested default 
rendering must implement the rules in the rendering section that that 
section defines as the behavior that user agents are expected to 

>> But the text in 4.8.1 is normative. 4.8.1
>> reads: "User agents should allow users to access long text
>> alternatives." Can you live with that?
> I could although I do think it has mainstream benefits. Should we push for
> this to be a MUST and accept a SHOULD if it is not acceptable to browser
> manufacturers?
> My concern is that if we make it a SHOULD we remove the argument that there
> are mainstream benefits from longdesc.

Don't we already say "must" - see quotes above.

THat said: One of the examples in the Rendering text is a javascript 
implementation, so it is not 100% true that we *remove* it. ALso, If we 
say MUST, do we then create the impression that it is useless if it 
gets a SHOULD?
Leif H Silli
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 01:58:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:56 UTC