W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: using an attribute to categorize the @alt state [was Baby Steps or Backwards Steps?]

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:30:34 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070817083034.GF10695@stripey.com>

Jon Barnett writes:

> On 8/16/07, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
> > I can't think of a good name for this attribute, but consider
> > something like @embedrel (required) for now (name suggestions
> > welcome). The value of this attribute would reflect the scenarios
> > identified in the recent changes to the draft. missing, icon,
> > decorative, seecontext, seefallback. The value 'missing' would be
> > the default value, unless '@a't had a string (or perhaps some other
> > contingencies for content backwards compatibility )  so not setting
> > either @alt or @embedrel would be considered 'missing'.
> I am by no means opposed to a new attribute for indicating that an
> image intentionally has no @alt text, i.e. a new attribute to do what
> omitting @alt does now.  The suggestion was @noalt, Maciej has
> mentioned it in a recent message.  If it can be proven that either (a)
> enough UAs treat missing @alt the same as alt="" or (b) enough authors
> omit alt when they really mean alt="", then I'd be in favor of that
> attribute.

We'd also need to define what user-agents should do if:

* an img has both noalt and alt=""
* an img has both noalt and a non-empty alt

By using two separate attributes we introduce the scope for
self-contradictory documents.  An advantage of using 'not having an alt
attribute' to mean 'noalt' is that it's impossible to simultaneously
both omit the alt attribute and include it.

Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 08:30:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC