Today in IRC a discussion lead to a hypothetical example that didn't fit
easily into the spec's current requirements for the alt attribute.
The example was a case of a hacker who replaces the Google logo on
google.com with an image only containing the text WE HACKED YOUR
SERVERS. We assume
On 18/04/2008, Bill Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The example was a case of a hacker who replaces the Google logo on
google.com with an image only containing the text WE HACKED YOUR SERVERS.
We assume the hacker cares enough about accessibility to set the alt
attribute to the same text.
On 17 apr 2008, at 22.23, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
I think an exception should be thrown when ApplicationCache add/
remove is called with invalid URLs.
Can you be more specific about what you mean by invalid?
URL not found in the cache?
Malformed URL?
Something else?
Geoff
Invalid as in
William F Hammond wrote:
Perhaps you should clearly state your definitions of bad and good
in this case? I'd also like to know, given those definitions, why
it's bad for the bad documents to drive out the good, and how you
think your proposal will prevent that from happening.
Good and bad
RE: Comments by Phillip Taylor and Bill Mason regarding alt=
You both raise some excellent points. Logically alt should be optional
since as you clearly demonstrate some things have no alternate textual
meaning (at least not one of any value to the user). The trouble with
alt= (or no alt) is
