- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:27:18 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Your edited version looks good in terms of meeting the requirements, would you mind sending a flat copy without the varying quoting levels, or else put it in the Wiki, so I can have a nice readable copy to link in the status list? (I'll link this version in the meantime.) On Dec 17, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:39:11 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> Thanks for providing a Change Proposal for this issue! The chairs >> are reviewing Change Proposals to ensure that they meet the >> required structure. Here is our feedback on this Change Proposal: >> >> (1) This Change Proposal lacks a clearly marked Summary section >> (perhaps some of the introductory text is a summary, but that is >> not clear). >> (2) This Change Proposal lacks a clearly marked Details section, >> and does not provide sufficient detail to identify a specific >> change. It's mentioned that many sections may change, but does not >> identify explicitly which changes are required by the Change >> Proposal. >> (3) This Change Proposal lacks an Impact section. > >> On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >>> Hello, > > > SUMMARY: >>> I would like to propose that the longdesc attribute from HTML 4 be >>> retained in HTML 5 as an allowed attribute on images. > > DETAILS: >>> This implies the following changes to the spec: > > [I assume these are reasonably clear, and provide sufficient > information > for the editor to incorporate the relevant changes into his > workflow. Is > that assumption valid, and if not, can you please clarify what I > should be > providing?] > >>> at > > Section 4.8.2 > >>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-img-element >>> img would also become interactive content with longdesc present. > > i.e. add "or longdesc" after "usemap" in the phrase "If the element > has a > usemap attribute" under the 'Categories' item. > >>> The longdesc attribute would be listed as an attribute for the >>> element. > > i.e. Add "longdesc" to the list of content attributes, and > "attribute DOMString longdesc;" to the attributes listed in the DOM > Interface for the img element. > >>> The attribute is described already in HTML 4 [1] and the >>> description can be re-used although it should be made clear that >>> the URI to which longdesc refers can be a relative reference to >>> some part of the same page (in order to be explicit about which >>> content is associated with the image), or a different page. > > I.e. in the first sentence at [1], add text such as "which may refer > to a point within the current page or to a different page" after the > work "link". > >>> The example, which references an image but appears to provide >>> useless alt text should not be copied from HTML 4. >>> >>> Other sections that may change: >>> 4.8.2.1.1, 4.8.2.1.2, 4.8.2.1.3 should all mention that a longdesc >>> *may* be provided to provide a detailed *description* of the >>> image, e.g. to help a person who cannot see it to find it from a >>> description. >>> >>> 4.8.2.1.5 should mention it as a way to make the association >>> between an image and the relevant text explicit. >>> >>> 4.8.2.1.6 should mention it as the preferred way to point to a >>> description of the image if this is desired, rather than mis-using >>> the alt attribute for this purpose. >>> >>> 4.8.2.1.9 should mention that where an image is a key part of the >>> content, it should have sufficient text in the alt attribute to >>> replace the image, and using the longdesc attribute for critical >>> information is a mistake. However, it can be used for additional >>> information if desired. >>> > RATIONALE: >>> This has been a controversial topic. It is clear that longdesc is >>> relevant only to a fraction of images on the Web, and that it is >>> only provided in a few of the cases where it is actually relevant. >>> It is also clearly subject to bogus values to a large extent >>> (perhaps the majority of the time). And its use is relatively >>> limited, even by those who might be expected to appreciate it. >>> >>> However, it has been implemented multiple times successfully. The >>> fact that there is bad data associated might account for low >>> overall usage, but has relatively little impact on >>> implementations, which can readily choose to simply ignore values >>> which are not URIs, or even to present the value to the user, and >>> relatively little impact on the user, who can still benefit from a >>> *good* usage. >>> >>> This would require conformance checking to accept the attribute as >>> valid, and would imply maintaining the existing requirement on >>> Authoring Tools[2] to allow the author to use this functionality. >>> It would maintain conformance of HTML-4 tools and content, rather >>> than the current expected change leaving them non-conforming. > > IMPACT > This has no impact on existing HTML-4 browsers, many of which fail > to make > longdesc accessible other than via the DOM. Failure to make this > change > will have an impact on assistive technologies such as screen readers, > which use the longdesc attribute to find descriptions of images. > >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#adef-longdesc-IMG >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG-10/ makes several relevant requiremnts >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Chaals >>> >>> --Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group >>> je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk >>> http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:28:22 UTC