- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 02:28:23 +0200
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Laura Carlson, Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:46:14 -0500: >> It is a move towards allowing alternative text via fallback markup >> content (as opposed to just via attributes), and hence a postive step. > > An element like <desc> would provide a semantic holder for rich text > on-page long descriptions. > > However, it would be hamstrung to on-page descriptions. It would not > be a direct off-page long description that could be applied globally > across multiple sites, or across an entire site, or across a subset of > pages. > http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/constriants/separate-doc.html You say that a @longdesc can serve as discrete link, right? And, yes it can. I don't support <desc>. And never loved that idea. And after this debate, I think I am ready to limit the fallback of <picture> to alternative text, by what I mean to limit it to "short description". Because, like Peter said: by offering alternative text in the form of fallback content/elements, one could e.g. declare the language for different words in the fallback. This is not possible if we limit the fallback to <img> alone. It would also be possible to include an anchor element to a longer description. I would suggest that the spec should allow authors a choice: Either to use <img> (that is: @longdesc and @alt) for the alternative text and longdesc link. But that they also should be permitted to place the same, short text in mark-up in the fallback. What do you think about such an idea? -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2012 00:28:54 UTC