I was also quite saddened to see it wasn't supported. This can be used to great effect on the web and would save a lot of useless markup and code.
Most people tend to: 1) wrap a link around an image for description purposes 2) wrap a div around it and have a section of text under the image 3) Use of libraries for loading images inline from thumbnails, and these can contain long descriptions. The use of longdesc to point to pages could be useful in a place like Wikipedia since all of the images point to the image page that contains information on the images, sources and stuff like that. Imageshack, Photobucket and similar sites tend to have a linkback to their sites via thumbnails, longdesc could simplify this and save around half the bytes used in markup. If Longdesc were to be expanded (and name changed?) to allow linking to the full image as well, it would certainly give a reason to support it. This could kill 2 birds with 1 stone, other efforts have been made to add a fullsize attribute for images, which has been turned down... http://www.addfullsize.com/ Also, as you can see, the jQuery library uses longdesc for this purpose. I honestly can't see a reason not to support it, it would save a lot of useless markup on pages. Look at Image Search pages as a good example, they could be roughly halved in size in markup, which is a huge amount combined across the millions of users, every byte counts. I'd love to see a native image viewer for thumbnail->large instead of all the hack jobs and JavaScript to attempt to do it. On Sep 6, 5:47 am, shirish <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > While I'm no web developer I was reading something called longdesc > .http://blog.whatwg.org/the-longdesc-lottery. I went to the various > links given therein and then on a hunch went to the w3schools as to > what they think from browsers POV . > > As a shocker came to know about this > .http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/att_img_longdesc.asp > > While as a sighted user I don't have issues, but for my > differently-abled friends it doesn't seem to be a good thing :( > > Is this still true of Chrome ? Is there a bug filed for the same ? > -- > Regards, > Shirish Agarwal > My quotes in this email licensed under CC > 3.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com > 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
