- From: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:36:42 +1100
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: > I agree with you with regard to the short term. But until the vendors > step up, it seems not exactly unlikely, that the short term effect > would only be that @longdesc becomes conforming - but without improved > support in UAs in the nearest time frame. It is quite possible that > legacy UAs with bad support for <object>, will be replaced with new UAs > with good <object> support faster than new UAs with @longdesc support > can be introduced. Either outcome would solve the problem. My personal preference is for <object> on grounds of good design, but I still think that if one wants to overcome the inadequacies of <img> (in so far as this can be done), @longdesc is the best option so far suggested. Without UA implementors involved in this discussion, I think predictions about what they might or might not choose to support can be speculative at best. I also wonder whether this decision would be different if proponents of accessibility offered to write the implementations and submit patches to the free and open-source UAs. That way, the organizational sponsors of those projects wouldn't have to commit resources to doing the work, and the discussion would then be entirely a question of the merits or otherwise of the proposed changes.
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 22:37:12 UTC