- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:55:36 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: >> 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. > > Another argument for this feature is, I think (as have been mentioned > earlier) that aria-describedby="" can be used for the same thing. Wouldn't that be an argument *against* either @longdesc or @aria-describedby? Having two features with the same purpose seems like a bad thing. Or am I misunderstanding something? / Jonas
Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 21:56:29 UTC