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

Re: the market hasn't spoken - it hasn't bothered to listened [was Re: fear of "invisible metadata"]

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:20:04 -0700
Message-Id: <26775C8E-9910-4F72-9EE0-612657D3D381@apple.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>, Monika Trebo <mtrebo@stanford.edu>, "Gregory J.Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>

On Jun 26, 2007, at 1:12 AM, Robert Burns wrote:

> On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> <object data="foo.mpeg" alt="A kitten playing with yarn."></object>
>> <object data="foo.mpeg">A kitten playing with yarn.</object>
>> Doesn't look abbreviated to me.
> I might be wrong here, but I suspect you created your example so  
> that their would be no difference between the @alt content and the  
> fallback content. While that's a nice example, my point was that we  
> might want to think through whether that is always the case (in  
> which case @alt is not needed on the modern elements) or whether we  
> need to provide different mechanisms for these (possibly) different  
> semantics (@alt as an abbreviated alternate to non-text media and  
> fallback for non-text media).

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "abbreviated". I thought you  
meant a shorter way of expressing the same fallback content. But now  
I see you mean that you could both have an alt attribute for a short  
alternative and full fallback content for a longer alternative. I  
think that would just be confusing, personally.

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 08:20:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC