Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 23, 2006, at 18:43, dolphinling wrote:
Second, it could force authoring tools to produce invalid documents
if the author did not provide any alt text. However, those documents
would be non-conformant anyway, so this is not a huge problem.
It is. Authoring
On Jan 24, 2006, at 13:06, dolphinling wrote:
File - Save
If you save this page as is, it will be non-valid for the
following reasons:
You did not specify alternate text for one or more images.
The page will display properly, but will be less accessible to some
users and will fail
On 24 Jan, 2006, at 5:43 AM, dolphinling wrote:
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
Bizarre but serious conclusion: alt= should be optional for img in
documents where a meta name=generator... element is present.
How about Authoring tools MUST only provide alternate text that the
author explicitly
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:25:12 +0600, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... Is img ever non-presentational? Radical thought: Deprecate
img.
Why? Aren't there semantic images?
Maybe instead deprecate img for presentational images, leaving it only
for semantic images (with
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:25:12 +0600, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... Is img ever non-presentational? Radical thought: Deprecate
img.
Why? Aren't there semantic images?
Might be. As Anne suggests, a picture of a product might be a good
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting Matthew Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hmm... Is img ever non-presentational? Radical thought: Deprecate
img.
A company logo?
You could make an argument that trademarks have semantic value, but
it's kinda weak, because you can identify the company by name
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:11:29 +0600, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe instead deprecate img for presentational images, leaving it only
for semantic images (with non-empty alt required).
Sounds like a good idea. We should probably also consider how
object fits into this,
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Jan 19, 2006, at 14:05, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Without the alt attribute img becomes meaningless for devices
(and people) who can not interpreted images.
Good intention, yes, but let's consider the practice:
Suppose there is an authoring tool that has a design goal
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:54:34 +0100, James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Alternatively, the tool makers could give up the requirement of
human-supplied alt text and just generate an empty alt text by default
without asking. (Considering that the tool itself--not just
Hi,
From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've considered making alt= and omitting alt be conformant equivalents.
I haven't really thought much about it yet though.
Lynx shows the file name if alt= is ommitted. IIRC, HTML 4.0 previously
recommended that UA's should use the file name if alt is
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
This sounds reasonable. I guess I should change my statement:
The alt attrubute should be made optional, and when it's omitted, the UA
should try to obtain some useful information from the file name or by
other means.
I'm not sure I agree. If you look at
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:55:43 +0600, Matthew Raymond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds reasonable. I guess I should change my statement:
The alt attrubute should be made optional, and when it's omitted, the UA
should try to obtain some useful information from the file name or by
other
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:13:40 +0600, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bottom line is that requiring the presence of the alt attribute
leads to a situation where UAs cannot tell whether the alt text is empty
because the image is purely decorative or because the author did not
Quoting Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not speaking about img with specified but empty alt -- this one
is certainly presentational, and it's OK to require explicit alt=
for this case. I'm speaking about img with totally omitted alt,
which is currently invalid. I propose to allow
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not speaking about img with specified but empty alt -- this one is
certainly presentational, and it's OK to require explicit alt= for this
case. I'm speaking about img with totally omitted alt,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:43:42 +0600, Matthew Paul Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In HTML 4 alt= is an attribute for img, applet, and input. I can
think of no reason for input alt= to exist (form alt= would make
slightly more sense, for non-interactive UAs), and Web Applications 1.0
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:44:29 +0600, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why alt is a required attribute for IMG in HTML while an
empty value is allowed.
Because an empty value means that there is no alternate text and no
attribute at
all means that alternate text is
On 1/19/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I wonder why alt is a required attribute for IMG in HTML while an
empty value is allowed.
Because an empty value means that there is no alternate text and no
attribute at
all means that
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:05:30 +0600, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is because the title attribute is not important for the element
its
_contents_. Without the alt attribute img becomes meaningless for
devices
(and people) who can not interpreted images. Now I guess that in
19 matches
Mail list logo
