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: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:21:39 -0500
Message-Id: <7828EF15-9913-498B-923F-E951B5C33B72@robburns.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, 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 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).

Perhaps I should provide an alternative example just to illustrate  
what I'm trying to say.

	alt="My kitten fluffy playing with yarn."
	title="fluffy playing with yarn"
  > Fluffy, still only a few inches tall, is playing with a red ball  
of yarn that has to 3 times her size. She has just fallen on her back  
and it looks like the ball of yarn is crushing her. But she's really  
just having fun. </object>

Do the two character strings look different to you in this example?

Take care,
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 08:21:51 UTC

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