- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 15:02:37 +0200
- To: nir dagan <dagan@upf.es>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
There is a strong dependency between what we say in GL (and AU of course) and what we say in UA. For GL, we have several options: 0- "use LONGDESC" and "use (loosely defined) dlink" 1- "use LONGDESC" 2- "use LONGDESC" and "use <A rel=dlink>D</A>" 3- "use LONGDESC" and "use <A class=waidlink>D</A>" 0 is current GL. We can assume that if we go with 1, people who really want to provide dlink will include them anyway, with no rel or class: markup free style, which is not much different than 0. So to me 0 == 1 really. If GL goes with 0 or 1, there is nothing we can say in UA about dlink. Nir convinced me that authors who wants to hide their dlinks can use any class they want (e.g. class=hide). As Jon reminded us, there is a potential use for a better speficied dlink for OBJECT, where we don't have a LONGDESC. e.g. <OBJECT data=foo.gif> This is a short desc for a foo (<A href=foo.htm rel=dlink>long description</A> available) </OBJECT> This way the UI can use the same shortcut to access IMG LONGDESC and these (otherwise guessed upon) dlinks. So for reason of consistency, I favor option 2 for GL and a mention in UA that UA should make their best effort to not present twice the access to LONGDESC and rel=dlink and to use the same user interface to accessing the OBJECT rel=dlink and the IMG long description.
Received on Monday, 8 June 1998 09:02:32 UTC