[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Important question from Accessibility SC
Good question. I'd be inclined to either create a new attribute or use svg:desc. I wouldn't like using draw:name or office:name. That seems like a misuse of those tags. How about two new tags: 'office:desc' and 'office:long-desc'? This idea is inspired by: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#image-text-equivalent http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#long-descriptions Cheers, Daniel. Nathaniel S Borenstein wrote: > > The accessibility committee has a question that it wishes to pose to the > full TC. > > There are several places where ODF currently lacks a way to specify an > alternative textual description of a non-textual object. In such cases, > we could either invent a new tag or reuse an existing tag in what seems > (to us) to be a reasonable way. In particular, we're wondering whether > or not we can simply use draw:name, svg:desc, and office:name for such a > purpose. Would the TC recommend doing so, or would it be preferable for > us to create a new tag such as svg:title? Obviously either approach > will work, but we aren't sure which is better. All opinions are > invited. -- Nathaniel -- /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ /\/_/ A life? Sounds great! \/_/ Do you know where I could download one? /
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]