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

Re: fear of "invisible metadata"

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:43:49 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0706230643o3be3fd74v4a6fc3954c49e511@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Craig Francis" <craig@synergycms.com>
Cc: "Maurice Carey" <maurice@thymeonline.com>, "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>

> Perhaps the spec can say the alt is optional, but accessibility
> checkers (WCAG?) can run tests that will fail a document if an image
> had no @alt or <caption> assigned to it... this will help authors
> detect images they have forgotten to mark up.

I like the spec how it is as regards img@alt: I prefer that alt is
required, and yet UAs are instructed to cope if it is missing. The
means validators (and other tools that authors may use to check and
produce quality code) will report a missing alt attribute. This
happens now in HTML4 and I'm perfectly happy with it. I like the extra
clarity in HTML5 that instructs UAs: "If the alt attribute is omitted,
user agents must treat the element as if it had an alt attribute set
to the empty string."


http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-img

> <figure>
>   <img>
>   <caption>
> </figure>

OK, let's nip this in the bud. The spec does talk about a "caption"
but it only allows the <legend> element, not <caption>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-figure

I'd prefer <caption>, does it concern anyone else though?
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 13:43:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC