W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Need differentiator between "no alt text provided" and "no alt text necessary"

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:15:44 +0000 (UTC)
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0902022313360.952@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, James Craig wrote:
> 
> I meant to add a potential solution as to the wording. The current wording is:
> 
> If the src attribute is set and the alt attribute is not
> The image might be a key part of the content, and there is no textual
> equivalent of the image available.
> 
> Source: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-img-element
> 
> I believe this wording would be more clear.
> 
> If the src attribute is set and the alt attribute is not
> The image is assumed to be a key part of the content, and there is no textual
> equivalent of the image available.

"is assumed" is descriptive phraseology. Whom is it assumed by? Why?

I used "might be" because this is a sentence giving a definition. It's not 
absolute ("is") because there are error cases to handle as well.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 23:16:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:29 GMT