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

Re: Empty vs no alt attribute (was Re: Baby Steps or Backwards Steps?)

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:43:39 +0100
Message-ID: <46C759FB.40309@cfit.ie>
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org

Robert Burns wrote:
> I'm still getting a better understanding of my proposal as I discuss it,
> but this might help.
>
> The attribute @embedrel either 1) describes the relation of the embedded
> content to the surrounding document or document fragment; OR 2) tells
> the user where they can find it. In the case of 'decorative' and 'icon',
> that is the relation (though with 'icon' there can be more explanation
> in the fallback location too). For 'seecontext' users should read the
> surrounding context to understand everything they need to know about the
> embedded content. For 'seefallback' users should read the fallback.
> Finally, (and perhaps it is a better exposition to end with this  one)
> 'missing' means the explanation of the relation between the embedded
> content and the surrounding document is missing. It has not been provided.

Thanks for that Rob, this is clearer and provides for many more subtle
use cases.

Cheers

Josh
Received on Saturday, 18 August 2007 20:43:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:04 GMT