- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:07:31 +1000
- To: "Peter Krantz" <peter.krantz@gmail.com>
- Cc: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
I prefer "alternative" (as in @alt) which matches the author intent and is less subjective. Let WCAG and others argue the case for equality. WCAG 2 "equivalent alternatives" http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-provide-equivalents On 7/6/07, Peter Krantz <peter.krantz@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/6/07, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote: > > > > I agree, and also think that the term 'fallback' content is > > inappropriate for other reasons. IMO it is not a suitable term at all. > > > [snip] > > I would suggest 'equivalent' > > +1 for this suggestion. This makes it clearer for the reader that we > are talking about content that may actually be used when the image is > displayed (and not only as a fallback when the image can't be > displayed). To avoid endless discussions of the content aqctally being > equivalent, a note could be added to the spec clarifying that the > contetnt should "strive to be equivalent" or so. > > The question of a container for this type of content needs to be > resolved though. So far I have seen two suggestions: > > 1. Keeping the equivalent content inside the container itself (i.e. > inside image, picture, object etc) > 2. Keeping the content in a separate container which, I guess, could > be placed somewhere else with an appropriate connection between the > two. > > Some questions: > > For #1, should there be a UA feature that displays the equivalent > content? If so, what would be the recommended way of doing so? > > What type of elements are allowed in the euquivalent content? image? video? > > > Regards, > > Peter Krantz > >
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 11:07:36 UTC