Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MathML warning about accessibility #678

Closed
pkra opened this issue Mar 1, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@pkra
Copy link
Member

commented Mar 1, 2016

I've been wondering about the the following warning.

MathML should either have an alt text attribute or annotation-xml child element.

While I understand the motivation, this does not seem practical in today's state of AT. Is there actually an AT solution that would benefit from this?

From my experience, if an AT does not support MathML it will neither support MathML's alttext attribute nor support finding something useful in annotation(-xml) elements. (Actually, I'm not sure if the warning's "alt text" means MathML's alttext or HTML's alt attribute but the same applies to alt afaik.)

It seems to me that this adds to the burden of content creators without any benefits.

@rdeltour

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 1, 2016

This looks more like a spec issue; EpubCheck applies the conformance statements defined by EPUB for MathML alternative content.

Could you file the issue on IDPF/epub-revision?

@rdeltour rdeltour added the type: spec label Mar 1, 2016
@pkra

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 1, 2016

Thanks for the pointer, @rdeltour. I'll file an issue.

From the spec, I'm guessing the answer to my parenthetical question is that the warning should say "alttext" instead of "alt text". Maybe that's still worth clarifying here.

@rdeltour

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 1, 2016

I'm guessing the answer to my parenthetical question is that the warning should say "alttext" instead of "alt text". Maybe that's still worth clarifying here.

Right I agree. FWIW I'm pretty sure it was the case at some point earlier. I'll make the change in the next release.

@tofi86 tofi86 closed this in 98f60f3 May 16, 2016
@tofi86 tofi86 added this to the Next milestone May 16, 2016
@tofi86 tofi86 modified the milestones: Next, 4.0.2 Dec 11, 2016
@tofi86 tofi86 referenced this issue Apr 20, 2018
@rdeltour rdeltour removed the type: spec label Nov 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.