> > I think you may have slightly misunderstood the original email > > from this thread. The problem is that, in theory, browsers should > > give users a simple, easy, automatic way of accessing the page > > I think we are rather talking about two diffent things: > structure and > browser design. Yes, exactly...the original email by yoan did ask if we should drop the use of the longdesc attribute because of inconsistent/missing browser support for it. (rereading the way I worded it - "I think you may have slightly misunderstood" etc - I realise it may have come across as rather rude...apologies, it wasn't meant to be) > Just because only a few actually *uses* a certain type of > structure or > information is no reason to stamp it as 'useless'. The LINK > mechanism > is a case in point - even if it IS given a highly > subjective 'better' > way of activation in agents which support it. For what it's worth, that was the basic gist of my first reply to yoan. I think we're all pretty much in agreement then that the concept of longdesc is well worth keeping - of course - but that browser support for easy ways of "using/accessing" the longdesc url could be better... Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.ukReceived on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 10:22:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC