- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:31:07 -0400
- To: "Chris Kreussling" <CHRIS.KREUSSLING@ny.frb.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Perhaps the language is not clear. The intention is to suggest an existing LONGDESC for a file that does not have a LONGDESC. If the same image is used in two places on a site and one image has a LONGDESC while the other does not, suggest that the image without the LONGDESC use the LONGDESC from the image that has one. Does that make sense? Chris R. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Kreussling <CHRIS.KREUSSLING@ny.frb.org> To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 12:51 PM Subject: Re: ERT 1.1.B > >>> <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> 09/03 9:34 AM >>> > Please take a look at these two techniques in the ERT document. If they look > OK, they will stand and we can move on to the next techniques: > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/#Technique1.1.B > ... > <<< > > The third and last list item under "Repair Technique:" seems to be missing something: > > "Repair Technique: > > ... If another document on the same site uses the same image and has a LONGDESC, suggest that LONGDESC file." >
Received on Friday, 3 September 1999 13:31:32 UTC