[whatwg] Question regarding accessibility for img
bhawkeslewis at googlemail.com
Sun Nov 30 11:56:49 PST 2008
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2008, at 16:40, Pentasis wrote:
>> I notice that it says in the spec under the img-section:
>> "There has been some suggestion that the longdesc attribute from
>> HTML4, or some other mechanism that is more powerful than alt="",
>> should be included. This has not yet been considered."
>> May I ask why it has not been considered (yet)?
> Because there's an issues list of several thousand issues, and as such
> not all issues have been considered. If we could do everything at once
> we'd have a spec instantly. :)
Perhaps also worth noting that there's already been a quite epic amount
of discussion of LONGDESC, if you care to search the archives. I suppose
the text might be more accurate if it said "yet been decided".
A rough summary of the currently dominant view in WHATWG would be that
visible descriptions are more useful than invisible descriptions and
that in any case LONGDESC is poisoned by real-world abuse (
More information about the whatwg