Re: a question about alt

2007/9/6, Steve Faulkner:
> James wrote:
> >Distinguishing the cases alt="" and alt=" " would make it very easy to
> >typo a meaningfully-different value and very hard to spot the mistake.
> >If such an explicit indicator is desirable, using alt="" and noalt seems
> >like a better solution.
>
> I understand what you are saying. the reason I have suggested this is that a
> new attribute would not be backwards compatible with assistive technology.
> The alt=" " suggestion is treated by the assistive tech i have tested it
> with, the same way as alt="" (the image is ignored with default settings).

I'm not sure I understand (or rather, I'm sure I don't understand),
but wouldn't:
    <img alt=" " ...> (your proposal)
be equivalent to:
    <img alt="" noalt ...>
wrt backwards compatibility?

noalt here meaning "there is no applicable textual alternate" (i.e.
similar to not using the alt attribute at all in the current draft).

-- 
Thomas Broyer

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 12:47:15 UTC