On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:43:02 +0600, Spartanicus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem with allowing omission of alt depends on the meaning of
<img> without alt. If <img> without alt is defined to mean the same as
<img> with alt="", then the problem is that all cases when people omit
the alt attribute because they don't care will end up with mangled
meaning.
I don't see that as changing anything. Documents containing content
images without alt content are broken regarding this aspect, and they
will remain so if <img> without an alt attribute is considered equal to
<img> elements with alt="".
<img> is somewhat broken in any case. If I was making it up from scratch,
I would treat missing alt same as alt="" and define it to mean
"semantically valuable image for which the author did not provide an
alternative text". For purely decorative images, if such thing is to exist
at all, I would define a separate attribute like "decorative", so that
semantic images surely don't end up as decorative by mistake.
--
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
