W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: example spec text for longdesc

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:34:22 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTik2tt7E1=WkNEnCQrOvZXfO+RfuFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>
Hi Geoff,

Great to hear from you.

> It would be good to get browser vendors input on this point.
> So what do browser vendor think?  Jonas, Maciej, Chaals, Aryeh,
> Edward, and everyone else, here is a question:
> If longdesc is reinstated into HTML would you prefer having a default
> indicator to be  a MUST or a SHOULD or a MAY?
> </snip>
> I'm not a browser vendor, but I would prefer the default indicator to be
> MAY, and for there to be a user-preference setting for displaying longdesc
> values when present.

Thank you very much for the input.  We certainly could make it a MAY
with  a user-preference setting for displaying longdesc values when
present if people think it is a good idea. Why do you think it should
be a MAY Geoff?

How would you suggest rewording the user agent bullet?  Is your idea
for it to be something like:

"If a longdesc attribute is present...

"* User agents should allow users to follow such description links. To
obtain the corresponding description link, the value of the attribute
must be resolved relative to the element. User agents should provide
the user a preference to access the content via a device independent
mechanism  A default indicator may be present. Since an img element
may be within the content of an a element, the user agent's mechanism
in the user interface for accessing the "longdesc" resource of the
former must be different than the mechanism for accessing the href
resource of the latter.  User agent vendors are encouraged to consult
the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG 2.0) and its
implementation documents. "

Is this what you mean, Geoff? Do you have suggestions for improving
the spec text?

What do other people think? Is this a good direction?


Best Regards,

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 20:34:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:36 UTC