- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:51:16 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Henri, Aryeh
1) URL theory is adhered to as long as conformance checkers warn about
the *possibility* of a problem only. E.g. validator.w3.org has a "Notes
and Potential Issues" section for such issues.
2) No one has shown a URL which ends in an image file suffix and still
*is* an accessible description. [*][#] For example Wikipedia's
The_Scream.jpg page (about a JPEG reproduction of Munch's painting)
only describes the image from a technical side - it does neither as a
whole nor in any of its subsections contain an accessible description
of the image content. [1]
3) *If* Wikipedia's The_Scream.jpg page *had* contained an accessible
description, would it have been too much to ask that the #description
fragment was identified? Because then, the @longdesc URL would not end
in a image file suffix anymore.
Example: <img longdesc="The_Scream.jpg#description src=* alt=* >
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Scream.jpg
[*] URL shorteners could create http://example.org/longdesc.jpg.
However, e.g. TinyURL converts '.' to '-'. If it didn't then
it would probably increase security risks a lot ...
[#] 'png' is a language tag. As such, following could be possible:
http://www.example.com/longdesc.html.png
--
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Saturday, 26 March 2011 02:51:51 UTC