Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking On 09-10-27 20.15:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Leif Halvard Silli:
>>>> I agree that @longdesc and @aria-describedby aren't exactly the same.
>>>> However they are very similar.
>>> Everything with a link is "similar". But normally, if one element can
>>> take
>>> IDREFS only and another can take a single, complete URI, only, then we
>>> don't
>>> consider them similar.
>> If two features are designed to solve the same problem, then I think
>> they are similar enough that having both is a loss for all involved
>> parties.
> I think you should try to put in words what the "same problem" is. It sounds
> to me as if the only sameness you have in mind is "accessibility". That is a
> MUCH too wide sameness.
> Fact is: @alt and @aria-labelledby are somewhat related [*]. Why don't you
> propose to remove the one or the other?

If @alt was used as little as @longdesc is then I would definitely
propose to remove @alt as well.

Removing @alt at this point would break a lot of existing content out
there. That's the only reason why I think we should not let
@aria-describedby replace @alt.

>>>> Also, syntactically @aria-describedby has a larger syntax if the
>>>> description is in an external document.
>>> In addition to require a much more verbose *markup*, there are also
>>> "expected effect" differences. See John's message [1] (and my reply).
>>> [1]$a296a9c0$e7c3fd40$@edu
>> I don't agree there's an expected difference.
> Comparision table:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> describedby= | longdesc=
> Is fallback:           no | yes
>    Is link:           no | yes
> Moves you
> away from
> img itself:           yes | no

Is there specs to back this up? Or is this your opinion?

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 23:58:43 UTC