- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:43:09 +0100
- To: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Jason White, Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:10:17 +1100: > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> But now I understand that what you really mean is that it would be >> simpler to add longdesc=link directly on the <img>. And I won't deny >> that you are right. >> >> However, authors might find it simpler to test how @hidden works >> compared with testing how @longdesc works. Because, as you know, >> authors often don't get those things right that they don't see any >> effect from. [And I realize that now I talk as if the @longdesc support >> won't improve.] > > And that's where your case founders. > > If @longdesc is specified properly, then there will be a mechanisms that > allows authors to see its content, so the above argument doesn't apply. Yes, if 'specified properly' means 'specified in a way that vendors will implement'. ... snip ... > I don't like @longdesc because I think it's just a hack to deal with > a bad design decision made prior to HTML 2.0, whereby IMG is not a > container element and therefore cannot have alternative content > supplied. Unfortunately, decades later, we have to live with the > legacy of this and other decisions. In that context, @longdesc solves > a problem, but could be better specified on the user-agent side. > There may be superior solutions, but the proposal discussed in this > thread isn't one of them in my opinion. First, I will say that ARIA can also be described as something that we unfortunately must live with. Second: W.r.t. alternative content as child element, then I have news for you, in that regard: Support for <object> is improving. And I have recently written a change proposal for ISSUE-158 which will change the content model of <object> to be more similar to what it was in HTML4. This would allow authors to wrap an <object> in the anchor element *and* place a link as child of <object>. This should be, quite frankly, the HTML2.0 solution. You can read more about my proposal at the end of this letter. I love to get feedback that could help me improve it. In particular no screen reader user has wetted what I say there yet. But - danger, danger: I *think* that there is a risk that my change proposal for OBJECT could impact negatively on @longdesc ... Not because I want to weaken @longesc [I would like it to be valid and also would like support to incrase], but because it does provide another option for doing what @longdesc is supposed to do. Link: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/FlowContentInObject -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 04:43:40 UTC