Re: unifying alternate content across embedded content element types

On Jul 14, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Robert Burns wrote:
> If these same principles should not be applied to <object> then I  
> could understand that. However, the only reason I can think of (and  
> I'm asking for help here in understanding the objections) is that  
> @longdesc is simply more difficult for authors and users to use  
> (compared to <object> contents). Is it that @longdes either  
> requires a separate round-trip to the server or instead, deployment  
> of CSS or DOM calls to deal with concealing the local document  
> fragment until that fallback is requested by the user agent or the  
> user directly. Is that what everyone feels about this. Then just  
> say so. Then I'll know you're understanding what I'm talking about,  
> and we can stop beating the dead horse as Jon put it.

I should add one caveat. If the sentiment expressed above is the  
sentiment agreed to by everyone, it suggests to me that we should not  
be deprecating @longdesc on element (not that we are, but the current  
draft omits it). If anything, we could stand to lose @alt on <img>  
before we could use the more flexible and richer @longdesc attribute.  
I'm not saying we should get rid of either one, but we should  
definitely not get rid of @longdesc. If @alt is therefore redundant  
(as others suggest it is on <object>), we could consider deprecating  

Take care,

Received on Sunday, 15 July 2007 04:37:49 UTC