Re: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus

On Fri, 06 May 2011 03:58:12 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli  
<xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:

> 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

>>> 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

Yes

>> and accept a SHOULD if it is not acceptable to
>> browser manufacturers?

Hmmm. Browser manufacturers all already recognise it in the DOM (it's  
required for compatibility with e.g. screen readers that look for it).  
Adding an extension to a browser to find it is not that difficult (If I  
can get it half right in a couple of days a real programmer can do this  
easily).

>> My concern is that if we make it a SHOULD we remove the argument that  
>> there are mainstream benefits from longdesc.

And mine is that if it's only a should we suggest that this isn't critical  
functionality, just a nice-to-have, which is incorrect.

> 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?

No, we (as argued above) imply that this is a valuable rather than  
critical feature.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 10:05:58 UTC