On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:48:06 +0200, Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
I think you've misunderstand Simon's suggestion, which was:
<p>Rating: <img src=1 alt=3/5><img src=1 alt><img src=1 alt><img
src=0 alt><img src=0 alt></p>
Note /all/ the img elements have alt attributes, the point is the
alternative text for the group is expressed by the first alt attribute.
It's thus actually the same as the fallback you propose:
Not the same thing at all. There is no direct association between the
elements so there is no way a validator or browser would know the
difference between a missing/empty alt and an optional one - thus making
ALL use of alt optional as far as formal validation is concerned.
Automated conformance checking of alt is not possible anyway. It needs
human investigation with knowledge of the context in which the image in
question finds itself. Therefore, extra markup for aiding conformance
checking is not helping anyone -- on the contrary it adds more cruft for
the person checking for conformance.
As for browsers, the goal there is to replace all images with their
replacement text, and the result of both the above and your proposal would
be:
Rating: 3/5
Hence, your extra markup isn't helping browsers either. Moreover, it
doesn't degrade nicely with existing UAs unless the author goes an extra
mile and add alt to all the images (in which case the extra markup becomes
pointless again).
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
