- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 16:09:14 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 12:58 +0200 UTC, on 2007-07-03, Thomas Broyer wrote:
> 2007/7/3, Sander Tekelenburg:
>>
>> An attempt at finding a possible solution:
>> <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/picturetag/>.
>
> Another one:
> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/[...]
>
> Using IE conditional comments.
That's clever. Added it to <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/picturetag/#tb>
Note that Safari (2.0.4(419.3)) doesn't present any fallback in this case. A
bug, I presume?
> Major con: fallback in IE is only the img/@alt, so that's not much
> better than using <img> in the first place...
Well, your suggestion at least does allow authors to provide users of modern
browsers with a better experience.
Still, I think both conditional comment approaches are too hard for authors.
Especially if we mean to entice them to use <picture> instead of <img>.
Robert Burns' approach is the only one that seems reasonable to me to expect
from authors. Provided no <param> is needed, the spec's object definition
becomes author-friendly, and IE is fixed. {Ahem} :)
--
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 14:14:56 UTC