- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:25:37 +0200
- To: Craig Francis <craig@synergycms.com>
- CC: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
Craig Francis wrote: > > On 24 Jun 2007, at 21:12, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: >> when encountering a portrait of Lord Cornwallis, it isn't sufficient >> to simply caption the image "Portrait of Lord Cornwallis, ca. 1774" >> -- the student of the subject needs to know precisely how Lord >> Cornwallis is portrayed -- how old was he at the time of the >> portrait? what kind of hairstyle does he sport? what type of >> uniform? what do the buttons on the uniform signify? what is his >> rank, based on the eppalettes? what are the items that are included >> in the portrait, particularly those held by, or within reach of, the >> portrait's subject, for all such items have both symbolic and highly >> specific meanings, all of which the painter assumed would be >> understood by the viewer. > > > Hi Gregory, > > I have known about the @longdesc for years, but have never actually > used it... but a description like that really shows how useful it can be. > > It could be argued that such a description should exist on the page > itself... but I am sure there are cases where this is not possible or > relevant... I am less sure about this, at least in the context of the example given. I can imagine no reason that information could not be included either as additional content on the page containing the image or as an external resource connected by a perfectly ordinary hyperlink. Why is this not the case?
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 18:55:36 UTC