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

Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:42:51 +0100
To: "Olivier GENDRIN" <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Christian Schmidt" <w3.org@chsc.dk>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uno61poe64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:31:56 +0100, Olivier GENDRIN  
<olivier.gendrin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> Based primarily on #2 above and on Philip's research, I've made the spec
>> say to ignore <img src=""> if the base URI of the element is the same as
>> the document's address.
>
> What about <img src="" alt="relevant content"> ? Would that expose the
> alt instead of the img (as does firefox nowadays), or ignore the whole
> tag (and so loose the relevant informations) ?

Per the specification the element represents the text given by the alt  
attribute in the scenario that the image is not available and both the src  
and alt attribute are set. That the image is not available follows from  
the fact that the src attribute has a value that is an ignored  
self-reference which follows from the value being the empty string and  
supposedly (full document is not available here) the base URI being the  
same as the document's address.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 13:53:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT