W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:55:36 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0910261455s11033f85m44f3f3a0c25e5d56@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:01 UTC