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

Re: unifying alternate content across embedded content element types

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:41:49 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070715174149.GJ5621@stripey.com>

Robert Burns writes:

> On Jul 13, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> 
> > I still have absolutely no idea why you list @title as a mechanism
> > to provide an alternate/fallback. That's not at all what HTML 4.01
> > says about  @title and I don't recall it's ever been different in a
> > previous spec.
> 
> I list @title because if an author wants to provide <em> short</em>  
> descriptive information for a media file on an <object> element  
> (i.e., something that would show up in a text-only browser or get  
> handled in a non-visual UA), they would need to use @title to do so.

Why?  Just because the content of <object> _can_ contain long or rich
content, surely it can still be used for short text-only content in
circumstances where a piece of short text is what best provides an
alternative for those not viewing the object?

Smylers
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2007 17:42:09 GMT

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