- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:19:48 +0100
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mike@w3.org
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis, Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:20:30 +0000: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: >> This is an unofficial draft of aria-describedat >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/aria-unofficial/raw-file/tip/describedat.html > The name should reflect the fact that it is a URL. e.g. > "aria-descriptionurl" or "aria-describeaturl" would be better. If one were to pick @describedaturl, then why not, just as well, change @describedby to @describedBYidrefs ? I think @describedat is reasonably good - it fits the current naming pattern. Also, the name is probably not the only reason why @longdesc so often has had invalid content: Some lightbox libraries misuses is for 'large image URL' - probably because the authors were more afraid of using a new, HTML4-invalid attribute than they were afraid of using @longdesc for invalid purposes. > - Please define what "content that describes the object" would be. For > example, Wikipedia used to use @longdesc to link to metadata about the > image but not to a text alternative. +1 > Presumably we don't want > @aria-describedat to be used in this way? Again, would it be > appropriate or not appropriate to use this attribute to link to a > transcript for media? Would it be good to distinguish between > descriptions and transcripts? -- Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:20:32 UTC