- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:49:52 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 23:26 -0500 UTC, on 2007-08-05, Robert Burns wrote: > On Aug 4, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: [... how to allow for multpe equivalents through <element longdesc="URL">] > My thought was to have a fallback container that would hold multiple > sibling alternate equivalents. Something like: > > <img longdesc='theFallbackForThisImage' src='thisImage' > > Š > <!-- either in the same document or another document --> > Š > <fallback id='theFallbackForThisImage' > > <alt type='ContentType' subtype='some-subtype-expression' title='' > > </alt> > <alt type='application/xml' [... etc.] Ah, right. Hm... Actually, this approach looks like a list to me, which suggests that it wouldn't actually need two new elements at all, but just one new "alternates list" element: <table longdesc="#fallbackforthisimage"> <!-- either in the same document or another document --> <alt id="fallbackforthisimage"> <li type="text/html" title="prose">marked up prose</li> <li type="video/ogg" title="presentation"><video><object></object</video></li> </alt> (Note that I called the element alt. I mean it like your suggested <fallback>, but if only a single new element is needed, naming it <alt> would seem preferable given the definitions of "equivalent", "alternate" and "fallback".) Still, not requiring such grouping does seem more author-friendly to me. As far as that aspect is concerned, I'm leaning more towards having the alternate refer to the 'main' element. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 07:53:54 UTC