- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:26:46 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Karl Dubost, Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:14:32 -0400: > > Le 12 août 2010 à 02:41, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit : >> (2) New information that could lead to the issue being reopened. > > "New information" is too vague. Given the strong opinion that some > HTML WG Members have on hard data, I would encourage the proponent of > longdesc attribute to collect these data. > > * How many and which authoring tools give a UI for editing longdesc? > * How many and which CMSes give a UI for editing longdesc? > * How many and which search engines use and/or associate longdesc to > the original document it has been linked from? In that regard, what about RDFa? @longdesc is simply a URL. And RDFa is about URLs, no? Does RDFa treat it as a URL? And if not, shouldn't it do that? The relevance of seeing @longdesc as shorthand notation for <a rel="longdesc" href=*"> again comes to mind. If RDFa treats longdesc as equivalent to a link with rel="longdesc", then a triple will be be produced. Where is the correct place to file a bug against RDFa, to make it do this? > * How many and which assistive technologies are using longdesc (full > browser, OS level, plugin, etc.)? > > This information would create raw materials helping the discussion. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 12:27:23 UTC