In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Toby A Inkster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
There's two main reasons I decided against using alt as a legend in the
draft. Firstly, the simplest reason, this counts as invisible data --
except in Internet Explorer which displays alt attributes as a
roll-over tooltip.
Considering "alt" as invisible is a very graphical-browser centric view
of the web.
Secondly, and more importantly, accessibility issues with the ABBR
pattern have shown that we shouldn't hijack accessibility-related
elements and attributes without a lot of thought.
No, but we shouldn't ignore them, either.
Otherwise we may end up with results like:
<div class="figure">
<img src="foo" alt="Picture of a crazy foo">
<span class="legend">Picture of a crazy foo</span>
</div>
That's bad alt text, even without the contents of the span.
The "caption" and "legend" classes appeared to be semantically
identical.
"caption" appears to be what is meant here. Os is this another US vs. UK
English issue?
Andy Mabbett wrote:
Turning to specifics, I think the dismissal of the "include pattern"
is
unfortunate and needs to be reversed
The draft has always explicitly said that the include pattern *may* be
used.
But only in limited circumstances.
It suggests that the ABBR pattern *should not* be used
You don't appear to be answering me, here...
because frankly I can't see any reason why it *should* be used.
...but I don't agree that that's a good premise to exclude something,
even as a "should not".
--
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
microformats-new mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
