RE: D-links (was Conformance Testing Proposal)

I think we need to walk away from it as a recommended approach and move
toward the HTML std.  However, longdesc support is currently spotty.  So as
a technique I don't think we should say that people (who want to) - should
not use it - but I think it should be IN ADDITION TO not instead of the
proper technique of 'longdesc'.  Otherwise we will never get rid of D-link
or get support of longdesc by AT and user agents. 

Having them both does provide some problem to devices that support both --
but if they are identical it shouldn't be that hard a problem. 

Thoughts?
 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:38 AM
To: WAI-GL
Subject: Re: D-links (was Conformance Testing Proposal)



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
To: "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: D-links (was Conformance Testing Proposal)


I think we can all agree that the d-link has got to go. It's an ugly
kludge
that was used because the longdesc was not supported.

Roberto Scano:
I agree... this is an "hack" that must be removed.


Chris Ridpath:
It currently does serve a purpose but, with the longdesc getting more
support, it's becomming useless.
Do we dump it now or wait another year or two?
If kept for a short while, would it be a priority 3?

Roberto Scano:
Personally I suggest to remove from HTML techniques in WCAG 2.0.. and if
is possible to WCAG 1.0 Second Edition...

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2004 11:03:00 UTC