Re: RFC: Re: To what content type does longdesc refer?

At 02:01 PM 8/26/99 +0200, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
>I'm fine with the principle, I just wish to add a introducing sentence 
>to your resolution paragraph:
>A URI-reference identified by a LONGDESC attribute can point to any
>Web document type. 

How can I say what you want to say without giving the appearance that the
URI-reference give information about a type governing the identified resource?

The problem is, I can appear to negate your sentence and come up with a
true statement:  "A URI-reference [...] can't point to any Web document
type."  It is an untyped reference.  There is no type until the pointer is

>The content which results when the resource is
>recovered is subject to the provisions of the WCAG 1.0, same as for
>the referring document.  This is how the obvious suitability-for-use
>concerns should be addressed, and not through any clause in the
>specification of the referring format restricting the content type of
>the resource served under the cited URI.

That's why I went through all that long song and dance to construct the
subject of my sentence.  But this is a technicality.  Maybe I should be
more postive and direct:

-- revised draft suggested resolution --

1. There are a variety of formats that are appropriate for long
descriptions of images, and it is likely that new appropriate formats will

2. Referenced long description resources must be included in the scope to
which the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are applied when the
referring document is in such a scope.  This is considered the appropriate
way to define the requirements on long description resources, rather than
by adding content type restrictions associated with the LONGDESC attribute
in format specifications.

-- end revised draft suggested resolution --


Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 09:34:23 UTC