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 14:17:42 +0200
To: "Fabien Basmaison" <fabien.basmaison@arkhi.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tuzq3st064w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:10:42 +0200, Fabien Basmaison  
<fabien.basmaison@arkhi.org> wrote:
> But don't you agree that an alternate representation of the image can  
> contain hyper links (or even <strong>, or <cite>, ...)?
> We're still dealing with HyperText, after all; no matter the place this  
> hyper is placed in.

Indeed.


> I agree the context may be very important to the background of an image,  
> though getting redundant some informations available or not in the @alt  
> most of the time, but why "forbidding" this possibility?

I don't think we're forbidding anything, we're dealing with constraints.  
The constraints being that <img> is widely popular and well supported and  
therefore making it non conforming is not likely to go down well.

Then there is the question of how common markup fallback would be. If it  
is very common it might be worth it to investigate something like  
<picture> / <graphic>. If it is not very common we should simply consider  
having authors use <object> which already solves this use case. (If they  
need it to work in current versions of Internet Explorer they can maybe  
use some type of scripted workaround or any of the alternatives proposed  
elsewhere in this thread.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 12:17:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT