- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:07:37 +1000
- To: "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
> > I'd like to extend this to say it can include other elements (block > > level probably?) which get treated as "contextual information related > > to the figure". That's explicit enough for me, and pretty easy to > > author (and probably what is meant, if an author chucks extra stuff > > within <figure>) > > I'm not clear about what you mean here. Are you saying that the non- > embedded contents of a <figure> should be treated as fallback for the > primary embedded content within the <figure>. No, not fallback. It should always be rendered alongside the video/image/etc. UAs don't need to do anything special. AT could use it for richer accessibility: e.g. it's contextual information within the page that relates to the embedded content (of course it relates, it's part of the figure). It's kind of like an implied longdesc pointing at a sibling element (visible to all). > > We could add in @longdesc and a new element like <longdesc> but I > > don't see that it adds much and being more proscriptive is probably an > > unnecessary challenge for authors. > > I''m not sure what you mean by "being more proscriptive". The > <longdesc> element simply adds to what an author can do. I'm not > suggesting that authors not be allowed to use the <img longdesc=""> > in ways their already accustomed to. We could do this: <figure> <img ... longdesc="#gw"> <div id="gw"> </div> </figure> which is aligned with your suggestion. My suggestion is to simplify that to: <figure> <img ...> <div> </div> </figure> i.e. not require @longdesc and a matching @id within the <figure> Easier for authors. Perhaps not quite as explicit in the markup. But if we define HTML 5 to work that way, then it would be explicit. @longdesc is more flexible in that it allows you to reference content outside the <figure> (indeed, outside the current document). These are just alternatives to consider. I'm keen on "easier to author".
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2007 09:07:40 UTC