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

Re: Proposal: accessibility revision for the img element...

From: scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:09:05 -0600
Message-Id: <1A98D24A-4697-4905-B811-9E82AE761D1D@scotfl.ca>
Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC