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: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:34:32 +1000
To: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070819003432.GA4434@jdc.local>

On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 12:47:53AM +0100, Philip Taylor wrote:

> One problem with adding new required attributes is that a large amount of 
> conforming HTML4 content will be made non-conforming HTML5, and can not be 
> trivially converted into conforming HTML5.

This is correct. However, @alt is already required as of HTML 4. I thought
Rob's proposal was to require that @alt, or @embedrel, or both, be supplied,
with the result that existing HTML 4 documents with @alt would conform under
the new arrangement.

Another possibility would be to continue requiring @alt as in HTML 4, but to
allow @embedrel as an optional attribute. This would simplify conformance
checking in that it would be backward-compatible with HTML 4, and it wouldn't
complicate the validity requirement by specifying that either or both of two
attributes (@alt and @embedrel respectively) must occur on the element.

Although I used @embedrel in the above examples, this is only for illustrative
purposes and should not be construed as expressing a preference for using
@embedrel (or another new attribute) rather than @role to carry the envisaged
semantics.
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2007 00:40:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC