Geoff Freed wrote: > > On 5/6/11 6:05 AM, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Fri, 06 May 2011 03:58:12 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli >> <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: >> >>> >>> I could although I do think it has mainstream benefits. Should we push >>> for this to be a MUST >> >>Yes > > GF: > I also agree. +1 >>> 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. > > GF: > Ditto. +1 again. There should be no uncertainty, no doubt. It has been argued that the information that @longdesc provides can often be useful for users other than those that are blind, and that can be a compelling argument on many levels. User Agents MUST provide a means of exposing *specific* author data that exists in the DOM - we draw the line on prescribing how, but insist that it be done somehow. This is an important accessibility feature that is required (by users and authors), not a small favor we are begging of the User Agents. JFReceived on Friday, 6 May 2011 15:18:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:59:01 UTC