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

Re: example spec text for longdesc

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:21:01 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimR7yufqfLMDp8JGzjQaC19wn8MgrCvrF-DJF5Y@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Lachlan,

- public-html-a11y

On 3/25/11, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> On 2011-03-25 13:03, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 07:51 -0500, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> 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.)
> It's completely bogus in the case of MediaWiki, for example.  Take this
> randomly picked image from the front page of Wikipedia today.  The URL
> ends in .jpg, but it's to the image's summary page, not the image
> itself, and so this could actually be a perfectly acceptable URL for a
> longdesc (if the page actually contained a suitable description).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Giacomo_di_Rialto_%28Facade%29.jpg

Based on your and Henri's feedback I deleted the sentence,
"Conformance checkers should issue errors if the longdesc URL has
certain file suffixes, such as .gif, .jpeg, .png etc.)", Thank you
very much. I could put something like it back back if people think it
would be useful to have it as a warning. Is it better without it?

Lachlan, if longdesc is to be reinstated into HTML, do you have other
thoughts on how to improve the spec text at:

Ideas for improvement are very welcome.

Best Regards,

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 17:21:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:34 UTC