W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2012

RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:49:11 +0200
To: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120830204911194752.604ebd5f@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Adrian Roselli, Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:24:54 +0000:
>> From: Leif Halvard Silli

>> For toolmakers, it seems - to me - simpler to just let img@aria-labelledby
>> point to the picture element. (Or, eventually, point from picture to 
>> img - but
>> then we need validation rules for the picture element - instead.) Getting
>> WYSIWYG tool *duplicate* alt attributes ... my guess is we will never see
>> them do that. But I could be wrong.
> 
> I disagree.

I should add that I had some kind of automated duplication mind, so 
that the author don't ned to think about the issue, especially the 
issue of keeping in sync.

> [ snip] given 
> the confusion I see about ARIA and its support, I don't see 
> toolmakers approaching it as readily as just duplicating @alt.

BlueGriffon has supported ARIA for a while. I don't think it is alone 
in supporting ARIA ... Doesn't Adobe Dreamweaver support, for example?  
Of course, authors could retype the alt value, manually. I predict this 
will not happen often ... I also predict that we will, generally, see 
aria-labelledby support before we see <picture> support (however, this 
perhaps counts as nothing more than a wild guess).

>>>>  <figure>
>>>>   <ficaption>Caption</figcaption>
>>>>    <picture>
>>>>     <source src=files >
>>>>     <img src=file >
>>>>    </picture>
>>>>  </figure>
>>> 
>>> Your example has not @alt anywhere. Trying to stay in the scope of the
>>> <picture> element proposal, I think it is missing two @alts.
>> 
>> Confer the spec:

>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-img-element.html#img-good
> 
> That language lives in the clause: " If the src attribute is set and 
> the alt attribute is not [then...]" I do not take that to mean a 
> missing @alt is legal but simply how the browser should behave when 
> it has been omitted. I don't feel that overrides 4.8.1.1.1 " Except 
> where otherwise specified, the alt attribute must be specified and 
> its value must not be empty; the value must be an appropriate 
> replacement for the image. "

OK. Then check the figure element example in the section "Graphical 
representation of some of the surrounding text". [1] Or try the 
validator. [2]

[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-img-element.html#a-graphical-representation-of-some-of-the-surrounding-text
[2] http://tinyurl.com/validinsidefigure
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:49:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:49:44 GMT