[Bug 22187] Replace the “description” with “independent description”

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22187

--- Comment #5 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to comment #4)

> 1. The Use Cases and Requirements notes the same contrast Vlad does, in
> terms I believe are similar. The rest of the document relies on HTML
> accurately describing what an alt does, which I think is a proper separation
> of concerns.

(The fact that ‘independent’ (IMO) fitted in so nice does (IMO) show how
fitting it is. The adding of 'indpedent' fits in. It expresses the same
thinking. *However*, adding in the word "independetn" brings out the thinking
more - it makes it easier to get an idea about what longdesc is.)

> 2. It is not clear in what sense the description is independent of the image
> it describes,

Strawman: The description is of course not meant to be "indepentn of the
image".

The dichotomy is, as told: "replacement text" vs "description text".  Ans so,
the description is meant to be independent of the *context* of the image.
Because that is Vlad’s point: the alt text cannot be written without regard to
the context where the image occurs, whereas description can be more - or less -
independent of that context.

That the description is is supposed to be useful independently of the context,
is also reflected in the use case section, which e.g. speak about reuse of
description. (The use case section was one which I was particulary happy wiht
the addition of ”independent”.)

>so I do not believe that it improves clarity.

Understood as "independent of the image”, then I agree. I think it does
improves clarify if one understands it correctly, see above. (Of course, it is
possible that the spec should try to explain in what way the description si
independent.)

> I seriously don't think there is much value in messing with the title, and
> if there was it would be to change it to use the words "longdesc attribute"

Why not change the title to something that includes 'longdesc attribute'? I
cold perhaps live with that. This bug is a reaction to how the spec *currently*
stands. 

Please note: While I do get the sense that *you* consider this an
all-or-nothing kind of bug (where you seem to be on the 'nothing' side of it),
I don’t consider this bug that way. I seriously and deeply thing that
‘independent description’ (in the sense 'standalone description’ or "more
context free description") adds value to this spec. And I would be very happy
if you viewed it the same way, but I have no problem swallowing if you would
want to go through the spec more thoroughly and see where it fits in (or more
important: where it doesn’t fit it.)

Hint: The template for how HTML Working Group editors are supposed to response
to bugs offers the option "partially accepted.".

> The attached version of the document doesn't help convince me. And less so
> because Search and replace without more careful checking was not a good
> enough tool to convey your meaning.

I was surprisingly satisfied with the result ...

... but it is not true that I *only* did a find/replace. E.g. I changed all
occurences of “a description” to “an independent description”. In addition to
that, there are two bugs which this bug block - I filed those bugs as a result
of reading the find/replace result. I also replaced ”long” and ”extended” with
“indepdendent” (chicken or egg: technically I added in ”independent” first, and
read the result, and found that I had to remove ”long” - which reflected in my
edit - later I found I had to remove ”extended” too.)

> (By the way if you are going to do that, please *at least* make it clear in
> the edited version what it represents - leaving stuff for search engines to
> find and thus for people to read with essentially no context should be done
> carefully. I believe that's one of the reasons the copyright license of the
> document does not permit it).

Even if www-archive@ probably is a little under the radar(?), that’s a fair
point.

Charles, before I eventually do anything more, are on the same page with regard
to what I have meant? (namely "description independent of the context").

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

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 12:04:54 UTC