- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:07:57 +0100
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > I did not have time too look through it, but those I looked at either > contained only a "#" or they contained (another) image file. With > regard to the first (#) then I agree "misinformed" about the potential > negative effect. With regard to image URLs inside @longdesc, then there > are image light box solutions - libraries - that more or less > consciously makes incorrect use of longdesc. (Today they would perhaps > picked at @data-foo attribute instead - but that was not 'valid' then.) > Of the few I scanned, no one contained text. Yikes, maybe it is the former Silvia. Thanks for doing that Leif. It does therefore sound like an inappropriate sample population or at least partially so. > However, there was an open > source photo album CMS that, in an legacy version, inserted text into > longdesc. That is to say: Some of the documented misuse seems to stem > from CMSes and libraries that got it wrong. Very interesting. >And I imaging that developers of CMSes and lightbox libraries would not have done such > things if the negative effect could have been perceived by a browser > that they themselves could use. = It is very important with > implementation. Very good point.
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 10:08:33 UTC