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

Re: Proposal: accessibility revision for the img element...

From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:28:47 +0200
Message-ID: <a9699fd20706271328s7c1d40e7oafd382ac5850ac8f@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

2007/6/27, Robert Burns:
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> >> Is there an interop table  for the "image" element?
> >> Which user agents support it?
> >
> > Simple test case at <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/imagetag/>.
> > iCab, Firefox, Opera, Safari and IE6 present both the image and
> fallback. lynx renders the fallback only.
> By fallback do you meant @alt value? Or do you mean the  contents of
> the element?

See http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Ctitle%3Etesting%20support%20for%20the%20image%20tag%20in%20UAs%3C/title%3E%0A%3Cimage%20src%3D%22image%22%20alt%3D%22fallback%20in%20@alt%22%3Efallback%20as%20element%20content%3C/image%3E

Clearly, Firefox parses  tag is simply ignored) so the text "fallback as element
content" is actually a sibling of the image.

Almost identical behavior in IE7: there is an "/IMG" element in the
tree (yes an element with a name starting with a slash, and note that
it's an IMG, not IMAGE)

Opera 9 behaves the same as Firefox.

If you replace the @src with an inexistent image, all three browsers
show the @alt content as fallback (but keeps the other "fallback"
since it's not considered fallback content but a sibling of the

> If its the content of the element, then it sound like we found our
> answer. No?

Er, no, because "fallback as element content" is always shown: it's
not fallback content.
In other words: current browsers really treat <image> as <img> (even
the DOM shows 'img' elements, not 'image' ones).

> If its @alt then we need another element name.

We need another element name (I'd vote for <picture> if we really need
such an element, i.e. if <object> is not enough)

Thomas Broyer
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:29:10 UTC

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