W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Images and alternative text

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:26:20 +0300
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <ECFEBC18-835B-4B05-8161-5E99AE28E49A@robburns.com>
To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>

Hi Smylers,

On Aug 10, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Smylers wrote:

> James Graham writes:
>> James Graham wrote:
>>> Even without this specific example I think using random
>>> microsyntaxes in existing attributes is a bad idea for the reasons
>>> Philip mentioned.
>> As an alternative proposal with similar semantics I suggest that
>> instead of hacking a microsyntax into alt we add a boolean attribute
>> to image called no-text-equivalent (I don't care about the dashes if
>> they are considered too unlike other attribute names).
> Such an attribute is what Ian first suggested many months ago, where  
> it,
> (most unusually for this list) suffered from Warnock's Dilemma[*1],  
> even
> after he drew attention to it several times.
> So it's somewhat ironic that after Ian has abandoned that proposal,
> discussion of his subsequent proposal results in support for the
> original one.  (Or maybe that was Ian's cunning plan all along?)

There was no mystery to the lack of response when Ian put that  
suggestion forward. I, for one, didn't respond mostly because I was  
dumbfounded that someone who claims to engage in the substantive  
discussions of this WG had taken an idea discussed at length and  
ultimately rejected and presented it as his own new idea. Others may  
have failed to respond for the same reason.

Both suggestions (the separate attribute and the special syntax for  
the alt attribute) were both discussed at length long before Ian made  
the suggestion. An obvious contender for the former is the role  
attribute (requiring it for all non-text media). For the latter, I  
think the problems with legacy UAs are too great to take such a  
proposal seriously anymore.

The WG has actually had many fruitful discussions about this topic,  
but it wasn't annointed by the WhatWG, so Ian feels he can ignore it  
(and even present some of the discarded ideas as his own new ideas).

Take care,
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 11:27:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:37 UTC