RE: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus

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.

JF