[Bug 21678] i18n-ISSUE-251: Invalid content in longdesc

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21678

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no

--- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
+1 to the concerns from the i18n WG. 

(In reply to comment #1)

> Based on the heriarchy of needs principle, I believe the correct solution is
> still to allow user agents to make this repair,

Regarding the needs: does this permission help those that needs it because the
current instances of such invalid longdesc usage actually contains *useful*
content? 

Can you show is any such useful content? (Btw, we both commented a Norwegian
article about http://nrk.no, where the the responsible at NRK came forward an
said that their useless longdesc usage relatedd to bad templates.
http://www.epinova.no//blog/george-gooding/dates/2013/4/semantisk-bilde-html/#comment3366
)

My (well known) counter argumetns to what you say:

1. Today, the longdesc attributes in question, does not whether harm or help
anyone, since no AT or browser suppor such repair. This is similar to how
content of the (no obsolete, anyway) @summary attribute is ignored if the
<table> is deemed by the assistive technology to be a layout [aka
presentational] table).

2. Assuming thos most of the invalid longdesc attribute content is useless (if
evaluated as long descriptions [e.g. because the same content is found
elsehwere on the same page, which often seems to be the case]), one could say
that having assistive technology *ignore* such content (as they do today) will
function as barrier against experiencing the bad effects of the (sorry to use
that word again) "longdesc lottery".

3. Which, in turn, probably will be positive when it comes to the willingness
by vendors and longdesc critical people to acctuallly support this
specification.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 17:38:51 UTC