21679 2013-04-12 16:39:52 +0000 Vitruvian man 2013-05-02 09:38:29 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML Image Description Extension unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 1 ishida chaals ishida jaymunro public-html-admin public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 86047 0 ishida 2013-04-12 16:39:52 +0000 Section 2 Describing a well-known image http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-html-longdesc-20130312/#UCnR editorial, non-i18n related "the Da Vinci picture of the guy in a square and a circle" => "Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man" (Since you name other things in this paragraph, I assume the name of VM just slipped your memory at the time you wrote it.) 86049 1 chaals 2013-04-12 16:43:01 +0000 No, the point of the example is that it isn't necessarily the title that identifies the image. If you say to someone "vitruvian man" (the sort of thing you might get in a title attribute) they may know what you are talking about. If you describe the image (as) I did, many people who don't recognise the title will now understand the image you mean. Rather than adding the title, it might be helpful if I actually expanded the explanation to include a bit more of the above... 86050 2 ishida 2013-04-12 16:44:21 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > Rather than adding the title, it might be helpful if I actually expanded the > explanation to include a bit more of the above... That might indeed be a good idea, since I obviously got the wrong end of the stick. 86214 3 jaymunro 2013-04-15 15:56:06 +0000 How about leaving the original description, and putting the title in parenthetically. I never knew it had a name. It's good info for both folks that know the title, and those that don't. An extra word or two wouldn't affect the example. the Da Vinci Vitruvian Man (the guy in a square and a circle)... or the Da Vinci picture of the guy in a square and a circle (Vitruvian Man)... 87081 4 chaals 2013-05-01 10:02:42 +0000 As agreed by the TF, the use case was clarified to show that the title may not be as helpful as the description for identifying an image, and the bug has been resolved 87147 5 ishida 2013-05-02 09:38:29 +0000 Looks good to me. Thanks.