W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

RE: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:30:19 -0800
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000f01cab81d$f95c5260$ec14f720$@org>
Re-reading it, your interpretation sounds more
plausible than the one I came up with.

However, there's still

> Checkpoint 1.1
> Provide a text equivalent for every non-text 
> element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content).

Wouldn't the the test suite would have to be updated
to recognize there was a new way of alternatively 
providing text equivalents for non-text elements, 
and also that "longdesc" was no longer recognized 
as a valid way of providing a text equivalent?


-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:18 PM
To: Larry Masinter
Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

On Feb 27, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> The actual tests for conformance evaluation include
> testing for whether  longdesc is there:
> Test 1.1_HTML_04
> This test is targeted to analyse long descriptions
> of media elements.
> * Applicability criteria: all long descriptions
>   of images and media elements.
>  //img/@longdesc
>  //object//a/@href
> * Test procedure:
>   1. Check that the long description referenced
>      by the longdesc or href attribute is available.
>   2. Check that it appropriately describes the element.
> * Expected results: FAIL if #1 or #2 is false.

I think you're misstating what this test says. It says that *if*  
longdesc is present on an element, *then* the document it points to  
must be available, and must appropriately describe the element. It  
does not say longdesc is required to be present in the first place.

Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 02:30:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC