- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:03:52 +0200
- To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 07:51 -0500, Laura Carlson wrote: > Henri, how difficult would it be for conformance checkers to inspect a > longdesc URL and issue a warning if it suspects that the description > resource is unlikely to contain a description of the image (i.e., if > the URL is an empty string, Easy. > or points to the same URL as the src > attribute, Easyish. > And > how difficult would it be for conformance checkers to issue errors if > the longdesc URL has certain file suffixes, such as .gif, .jpeg, .png > etc.)? Easy though bogus as far as the theory of URLs go. (In theory, you should deference the URL and check the content type, but that would make conformance dependent on external resources, which is kinda undesirable.) In any case, approaching longdesc from the point of view of ease of conformance checker implementation is the wrong way to approach it. Frankly, all this seems to presume that longdesc must axiomatically be preserved and then rationalizations are sought to justify the conclusion. The right way is to consider what problems users face and what are appropriate ways to solve those problems--not to focus on the preservation of something that has been labeled as an accessibility feature. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 12:04:30 UTC