- From: scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:09:05 -0600
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
On 6 Jul 2007, at 1529, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > At 13:29 +0300 UTC, on 2007-07-06, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> On Jul 6, 2007, at 13:14, Joshue O Connor wrote: >> >>> 'Fallback' has a rather pointed connotation that it is somehow >>> secondary or not that important and for non-visual users it is >>> obviously 'primary' content. >> >> Political correctness aside, realistically, it *is* secondary as far >> as the *author* is concerned. > > That contradicts "The img element represents a piece of text with an > alternate graphical representation." Source: > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ > section-embedded.html#alt> And the next sentence in the spec states: "The image given by the src attribute is the embedded content, and the value of the alt attribute is the img element's fallback content." The img element is "Strictly inline-level embedded content," that is to say, the embedded resource (the graphic) is the piece of information the author wishes to convey to the reader. Though, I agree, the sentence you quoted is somewhat misleading when taken out of context. Perhaps it needs to be rephrased. scott.
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 22:09:15 UTC