On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:35:33PM -0800, Karl Berry wrote:
> It looks at
> ('eps', 'gif', 'jpg', 'jpeg', 'pdf', 'png', 'svg');
>
> HTML output, there's no real use in linking to an eps or a pdf as an
> image in html output, is there? Browsers will not render them as an
> image within the page (at least not that I've ever seen), which is what
> is desired.
No, this is the list for docbook, not html. For html, it is only
('.png', '.jpg')
> Or maybe svg should come before all the bitmap formats. I'm not
I could add svg for html, but it is still undecided.
> Now, Docbook might be a different story since people convert that to
> other formats. (Is Docbook XML viewable directly?)
Yes, yelp, for instance, does that.
> So maybe pdf+eps
> should come first in that case:
> pdf eps png jpg jpeg gif svg
In docbook all the file found are given.
> I think it is better to provide both if possible, for accessibility,
>
> For both HTML and Docbook ... does a .txt form of an image really mean
Nope, only for Docbook. For HTML the alt tag is used, but no .txt.
> anything for accessibility? I don't see it. ASCII art is not
> accessible. The verbal descriptions useful for accessibility should be
> in the alt tag.
There is no alt tag in docbook, as far as I can say, but the .txt plays
that role within the <textobject><literallayout>.
--
Pat
