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

Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Olivier GENDRIN <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:10:22 +0100
Message-ID: <e2c275120901130810s2d5c62f8of2fc633fb8bec4c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Christian Schmidt <w3.org@chsc.dk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> 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.

Errr. Wow.

If I understand you, you are saying that the alt should be preserved.
But Ian talks about "ignore <img src="">", wich is not the same.

-- 
Olivier G.
http://www.lespacedunmatin.info/blog/
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 16:11:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:00 UTC