Re: [office] Important question from Accessibility SC

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

IMHO, it would be good to have something
which we can point to and say that this is the unambiguous way to represent
alt or long-desc text throughout the specification.  It would be more
intuitive as well as easier for tooling.  

What makes this more confusing is that
I'm not sure current implementations use svg:desc right.  Take a look
at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#DescElement.  From the examples
there, it looks like svg;title maps more to XHTML's alt text, and svg;desc
is the more in-depth text, like XHTML's long-desc.    However,
in the ODF implementations I've seen, svg:desc is being used for the short
description and there is no facility for the long descriptions.  So,
it would be good to have both facilities and make it clear which is intended
where.

-Rob


Nathaniel S Borenstein <nborenst@us.ibm.com>
wrote on 04/26/2006 10:55:35 AM:

> 
> 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
> [image removed