- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:40:15 +0200
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 12.08.2010 01:56, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > ... > The most important problem of the decision document is that it lacks a > focus on semantics. One of the objectors, Lachlan, suggested early on > that one could do something like this instead of using @longdesc: > <a href=* rel=longdesc href=URL><img src=* alt=*></a> > And Lachlan's proposal was spot on with regards to the *semantics* of > @longdesc. It is the best alternative to @longdesc, so far. And, to be > honest, I am considering accepting this decision, and instead focus on > registering rel="longdesc" in the link type registry. The only problem > I have, when I am considering the rel="longdesc" solution, is that your > decision uses so much energy in stating that there is no use case, that > I really wonder if if rel="longdesc" would have your support. Or, > perhaps someone would point to your longdesc decision and reject > rel="longdesc" on that ground. (Therefore, please clarify the > contradiction I pointed to above.) > ... I think a longdesc relation type could be interesting, but I'm not convinced it's a good substitute for @longdesc (which we should keep). The reason for this is that <a href=* rel=longdesc href=URL><img src=* alt=*></a> only works when the <img> element doesn't already have a parent <a> element, which is something which is used a lot. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 07:40:57 UTC