On Feb 2, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > 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? Assumed by: 1. User agents, in order to give an appropriate experience to users. 2. Search engines, in order to index appropriate content. > 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. Then there is not a clear differentiation between "no alt text provided" and "no alt text necessary." The point of my thread is that there needs to be.Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 23:26:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:29 GMT