- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:19:37 -0500
- To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 5, 2007, at 10:17 AM, James Graham wrote: > Robert Burns wrote: >>> a) That there is a real use case that demands rich fallback for >>> images. Possibly anyone with this use case today would be using >>> longdesc to provide the rich content so demonstrating the correct >>> use of longdesc with rich contents would be helpful. >>> Alternatively a series of examples in which the user experience >>> is significantly degraded where rich fallback is not available >>> are likely to be persuasive. >> Why would correct use of the longdesc help my case. > > Because it would demonstrate that, despite the complexity, authors > had sufficient need for rich fallback that using longdesc to > provide it was worthwhile. > > If you can't demonstrate that authors are using the existing > mechanisms that are in place, you have the somewhat harder task of > demonstrating that they would use rich fallback if only it were > epsilon easier No, I don't.
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 15:19:48 UTC