Please see response below.
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
blog: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=441
"Bruce D'Arcus" <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us> wrote on 06/14/2006 01:47:23 PM:
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> > This is the way we believed that it should have worked in the first
> > place and that is to follow the proper XML usage (as we did in XHTML
> > 2) and to have a caption element be a child of the drawing. We did not
> > believe that it was in the cards to change things to this degree due
> > to legacy issues so we suggested the use of describedBy.
>
> Can you clarify the "we did not believe" bit? Is it the case that it
> would too onerous to add a new caption element, or to associate the
> paragraph with the content via containment? We didn't discuss this at
> the TC AFAIK, so I don't know.
>
Yes. It is much less intrusive to introduce attributes than an element which
effects the structure of the ODF document.
> > Now, I don't believe you can make it a child of just the <draw:image>
> > as you will want to caption the entire drawing which could include
> > groupings, lines, etc.
>
> OK; makes sense.
>
> > The Workplace team discovered one hole in describedBy in that the ID
> > it refers to is in a text:p. However, an oversight by our group is
> > that text-box can take multiple text:p's requiring that the ID value
> > for describedBy be on the <draw:text-box> element should the TC decide
> > to go with describeBy.
>
> Not following. Can you give an XML example?
Per the schema, the <draw:text-box> element could contain multiple <text:p> elements per the schema. And therefore
we could have a situation as follows whre we miss part of the caption:
<text:p text:style-name="Standard">
<draw:ellipse draw:describeby="Caption1">
<text:p text:style-name="P1">our world</text:p>
</draw:ellipse>
</text:p>
<text:p text:style-name="Standard">
<draw:frame>
<draw:text-box>
<text:p text:id="Caption1">
<text:span text:style-name="T1">Graphic 1</text:span>
</text:p>
<text:p>
<text:span text:style-name="T2">It's a test</text:span>
</text:p>
</draw:text-box>
</draw:frame>
</text:p>
>
> In any case, I'm worried, as I said, that using the linking approach is
> not a good long-term one, and will conflict with the metadata work. So
> I'm wondering how we balance all this.
OK.
>
> Perhaps in any case Dave and I ought to come up with an alternate
> proposal so that the two can be points of reference for resolution?
>
> Bruce
>