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

Re: handling fallback content for still images

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:01:23 +0200
To: "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tuzkslcq64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:44:58 +0200, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:29:23 +0200, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> I added the <img>fallback</img> for xml serialization solution to the  
>>> Longdescription page. If anyone can think of any other pros and cons,  
>>> please add them.
>>> <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/LongdescRetention#preview>
>> It creates more divergence between the HTML and XHTML serialization.  
>> Authors are already confused by subtle API and CSS differences. Making  
>> drastic changes like this is not likely to be appreciated. There also  
>> seems to be very little benefit given that the HTML serialization is  
>> used most often. If anything, we should optimize for that serialization.
> I meant to add them to the wiki. I already put that con on the wiki. If  
> you'd like to reword it you're welcome to do so.

You put it down for "pro". Saying that authors are already familiar with  
<img>. I'm saying they'll just be confused given the amount of XHTML  
treated as text/html already and authors complaining in bug databases  
about <span /> or <textarea /> not working as described by XML...

>> I have a very hard time understanding what problem you're trying to  
>> solve by the way. There is a requirement listed at the top of the page,  
>> but to me that seems addressed by <img alt>.
> I think you've asked this several times and I've answered it several  
> times, but I'm happy to answer it again.

The wiki page should explain it.

> Because <Img> has to be empty, authors cannot provide semantically rich  
> or media rich fallback content for images in a simple and  
> straight-forward manner (as they can for <object>, <video>, <audio>,  
> <iframe>, <object>, and <canvas>). <img alt> cannot do that at all. It's  
> really only listed there as a token solution.

Is there any evidence that suggests that authors will start providing more  
meaningfull fallback when they can have more than just text? For instance,  
what do authors currently do for <object> when they use it for Flash or  
video or some such?

> [...] And as many have said before, this is certainly more of a problem  
> to solve than the problems that inspired <video> and <audio>.

Saying it many times does not make it true.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 10:01:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:23 UTC