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

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

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:45:17 -0800
Message-ID: <5c4444771002271845i64f9beeekaea506340dadfe72@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> 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?

Actually, reading this more carefully, it seems you can author a
conforming HTML5 document that meets this requirement because alt and
longdesc are just examples of ways to provide a text equivalent for
every non-text element.  Presumable superdesc (or whatever awesome
accessibility feature we invent in the future) would also be fine for
this requirement.

Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 02:46:11 UTC

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