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

Re: unifying alternate content across embedded content element types

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:33:49 +0200
Message-Id: <p0624060bc2caf76e2ab4@[192.168.1.99]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 14:57 +1000 UTC, on 2007-07-18, w3c@appxweb.com wrote:

[...]

> As an example  take the two cases of the the W3C Valid XHTML 1.0
> Transitional image below.
>
> Case 1
> <img src="../images/valid-xhtml10-blue.gif" alt="Valid XHTML 1.0
> Transitional" height="31" width="88"/>
>
> Case 2
> <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"
> style="float:right;"><img src="../images/valid-xhtml10-blue.gif"
> alt="Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional" height="31" width="88"/></a>
>
> In the first case the image is used as a icon to demonstrate the
> webpage is valid  XHTML 1.0 and in the second it does this as well as
> providing a
> mechanism to validate the page (by clicking the image link). The alt
> text  "Valid XHTML 1.0 Tansitional" does not adequately convey the
> meaning of both of these cases  because the primary context is lost.

True. But I think the problem you note here is with the content. The content
(the image) doesn't make clear what the link will get the user. It would be
inappropriate to provide that clarity through @alt, because then @alt
wouldn't be an equivalent.

In other words, it should read something like:

<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"
style="float:right;">Verify that this page is <img
src="../images/valid-xhtml10-blue.gif"
alt="Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional" height="31" width="88"/></a>

Or the image itself could be changed to convey that  meaning. In which case
it *would* be appropriate to provide that meaning through @alt.


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 00:36:19 GMT

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