- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:26:45 -0500
- To: css21testsuite@gtalbot.org
- CC: Řyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 12/21/2010 03:45 PM, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
>
> Le Mar 21 décembre 2010 9:08, Řyvind Stenhaug a écrit :
>>
>> The idea is that there are two possibilities:
>> A) An image that represents its alt text is still treated as a replaced
>> element
>> This means
>> - A single box is rendered ("atomic inline-level box")
>> - The 'width' property applies
>> - The contents of the IMG (i.e. the alt text) are outside the scope of
>> CSS
>> B) An image that represents its alt text is treated as a non-replaced
>> element
>> This means
>> - Multiple boxes might be rendered
>> - The 'width' property does not apply
>> - The contents are within the scope of CSS
>>
>> Looks like Firefox is trying to do B (long alt texts are broken into
>> multiple boxes, line-height has an effect etc). Kind of like
>> img{content:attr[alt];}. So there seems to be no reason
>> direction/unicode-bidi shouldn't apply.
>
> Where exactly does the spec draw the line on what should apply to alt
> text and what should NOT apply to alt text?
The CSS spec only draws one line: CSS-rendered content vs. replaced content.
The test assumes that alt text falls into one or the other bucket.
~fantasai
Received on Monday, 27 December 2010 21:27:26 UTC