W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2010

[Bug 10455] Mint a describedby attribute for the img element

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:32:19 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OqbFT-0002V9-L1@jessica.w3.org>

Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |shelleyp@burningbird.net

--- Comment #60 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-09-01 00:32:16 ---
(In reply to comment #59)
> (In reply to comment #52)
> > It seems to me these discussions should be happening in the email lists, not
> > a bug. But that's up to the powers that be, I guess.
> People are 100% free to discuss things wherever they want, but so long as the
> discussion is relevant to the actual bug request, I would be much happier if it
> stayed in one place (which means here, as it started here).

Whatever. As long as it continues constructive, I suppose. 

> > And they don't meet HTML5's underlying semantic criteria. 
> I fear a thorough discussion of the principles HTML WG should adopt to deal
> with all issues - a subject on which I suspect the WG would *never* achieve
> consensus - risks derailing the discussion about this particular bug.

I don't believe so. 

If some elements and attributes are added because they're semantically
meaningful--rather than using alternatives--then that must be justification for
adding another attribute for the same purpose.

> > there is no place to define a set of expected behaviors for the specific use
> > of RDFa. It doesn't fit in RDFa, it doesn't fit in HTML5, yet it uses pieces
> > of both. 
> Why do you think it's a bad fit for UAAG Techniques?

It could be. But that's not RDFa+HTML5 or HTML5. Or are you suggesting that
this be handled by another group? In which, this is definitely outside of the
scope of a but for the HTML WG.

> > Benjamin, do you have a solution as to how expected behavior can be defined
> > for the uses of RDFa?
>     1. Pick or create a vocabulary that expresses the semantic relationship we
> want.
>     2. Spec out the behavior you'd like and put it at some permanent URL.

And we define UA expectations...how?

> > Again, though, even if a way to define expected behavior is provided, the
> > solution is not going to be attractive to folks not using RDFa for other
> > purposes in their document.
> I doubt the set of people able and willing to provide long descriptions
> significantly differs from the set of people able and willing to use HTML+RDFa
> (or authoring tools that use HTML+RDFa), assuming it ever gets standardized.

I would think that a simpler approach would have more adherents than a complex
one. I like RDFa, but I've never thought of defining expectations for behavior
based on RDFa. I especially never thought about approaching say, JAWS, or the
like and tell them they now have to incorporate support for RDFa, just so that
we don't have to have something like described-by.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 00:32:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:23 UTC