Hi Henri, - public-html-a11y per Philip's request [1] Thank you, Henri for sharing your expertise. I appreciate at it very much, >> 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.) Do you think that it would be a good idea for the spec to have language for conformance checking tools to do such checks if longdesc is reinstated into HTML? > 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. Use cases are at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc#Use_Cases What are appropriate way to solve the formal use cases? http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html#uc Thanks again. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Mar/0183.html -- Laura L. CarlsonReceived on Friday, 25 March 2011 12:48:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:34 UTC