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

Re: More about <alt>

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 04:40:29 +0200
Message-Id: <p062406b3c3090b05732b@[]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 17:41 +0200 UTC, on 2007-09-06, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:


> There is nothing in the keeping of @longdesc which prevents the user from
>offering two <ALT>-versons - a short and a long. But lets consider our
>example with the photo-album again: More things could go wrong without
>@LONGDESC than with, I think.  The user doesn't need or want to read 'short
>description' or 'long description' - the user just want the link to the
>canonical long description.

Agreed. But what we were discussing for photo albums is that it might well be
appropriate to only provide long descriptions (thus @longdesc, and no @alt).
If you translate that to <alt>, then I'd say that in that same case the
author would provide a single long description through <alt>.


> Browser implementations: IE7 supports the CSS selector IMG:hover+*{} - so
>once IE7 supported <ALT>, we could certain that it would be simple to show
>the alt text alongside the image.

Only if <alt> immediately follows the <img>.

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2007 02:45:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC