Re: conflation of issues or convergence of interests?

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> * Providing an ordinary link to the description alongside the video
>   pro: already possible and easy to do.
>   pro: makes it available to anyone who wants it, not just those with
>        assistive technology that exposes it.
>   con: ?

con: "alongside" is too vague. Are we talking about proximity in the 
markup, and if so do we need to define this proximity? Do they need to 
be immediately adjacent? Or just within the same parent container? Or in 
separate block level elements, but both in turn wrapped in another block 
level container or a certain type, or...?
con: the relationship between the video and the link is not explicit, 
and just relies on heuristics (which would need to evaluate the link 
based on whatever principle of proximity was defined in the previous "con")
con: even if proximity was defined, this would create some "special" 
grammatical or syntactical rule for HTML: "if a video element is 
present, the next link element alongside it must be assumed to be a link 
to an alternative for the video...unless the parent container is closed, 
or unless...etc etc (not a trick question: how could this be expressed 
in something like a DTD or schema?)

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________

Received on Saturday, 28 July 2007 03:13:00 UTC