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

Your rewording is ok by me.


> 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
> dereferenced.
> 
> >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
> emerge.  
> 
> 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 --
> 
> Al
>

Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 10:42:31 UTC