- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:40:38 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> [...] With the way that's written, it's quite difficult to comprehend,
> and unnecessarily complex. I suggest changing that condition to instead
> [...]
I don't want to rely too much on order for this one, because I feel being
explicit here is best if we don't want people misunderstanding it. I've
changed the order like you suggested, though.
> The spec isn't clear about what alt="{}" means, nor whether or not it
> would be conforming.
Fixed, I hope.
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Dave Singer wrote:
>
> For the text inside the {}, I think registration would be over-heavy.
> However, a list of suggested strings and their uses might encourage some
> sort of convergence. Also, I assume that the intent is that they be
> interpreted by the user-agent, rather than displayed to the user, so
> translated versions are not needed (and indeed, would be
> counter-productive).
Actually I was intending the text to just be shown to the user, so that it
would just use whatever language the site had used. Would it really be
helpful for the user agent to know the kind itself somehow? I was
imagining some pretty wide variety of kinds might come out.
> It appears not to be legal to have both a string and a {} construction.
> If we expect this state to persist, then perhaps we don't need a
> bracketing pair of characters, but merely an initial character?
Not sure what you mean. The bracketing is mostly intended to be a way for
the alternative text to degrade well in today's browsers.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 20:41:14 UTC