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: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:52:32 -0800
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <CE0E2ADC-F2E5-4F28-86FC-1682A1EA21F2@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Perhaps one way to make this clear would be to leave the sentence  
>> as is,
>> and separately say that user agents either MAY or SHOULD assume that
>> such images are a key part of the content lacking a textual  
>> equivalent.
>> That would leave the definition of the meaning intact and clarify  
>> what
>> is expected of user agents, while avoiding the ambiguous passive  
>> voice
>> construction.

Either MAY or SHOULD would work for me.

On Feb 2, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> The very next sentence is:
>   If the image is available, the element represents the image  
> specified
>   by the src attribute.
> ...and the Rendering section (which I'm writing as we speak) will say
> something along the lines of "user agents are expected to render <img>
> elements as replaced elements showing the image they represent" or  
> some
> such like.

Both of those are fine, but neither adequately defines how a user  
agent should "render" the non-visual equivalent of the image. I think  
Maciej's wording proposal above does.
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 23:53:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC