Re: ERT 1.1.B

>>> <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> 09/03 1:31 PM >>>
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.
<<<
That's sort of what I got from it, but it's not clear as written. The first problem is the use of the word "file," which implies, to me, some other file external to both the current document and the "other document." The valid value for LONGDESC is "any valid URI," so maybe "URI" should be used instead of "file." I'd reword it something like:

...  If another document on the same site uses the same image and has a
LONGDESC, suggest linking to the same long description URI.


----- 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."
>


<author>Chris Kreussling</author>
<disclaimer>The views expressed are 
those of the author and do not necessarily 
reflect the position of the Federal Reserve 
Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve 
System.</disclaimer>

Received on Friday, 3 September 1999 14:09:05 UTC