W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2013

Re: [whatwg] @aria-labelledby | Re: @generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt, figure with figcaption

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:10:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vk0VYo7n1RtCqxZ+xPXe+jh7+0hMM_AZu6V5CB090x2pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Hi again,

forgot to mention that the requirements for conformance checkers
implementation requirements do differ due to differing the author
requirement.

so in W3C HTML validator:

this results in an error

<img title="poot">

In validator.nu it doesn't



--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 18 June 2013 12:02, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonas
>
>
>> I.e. is the difference between the W3C and WHATWG versions here just a
>> difference in authoring requirements? Or also a difference in
>> implementations requirements?
>
>
> authoring requirements only
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>
>
> On 18 June 2013 11:57, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Steve Faulkner
>> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Am 07.06.2013 um 23:13 schrieb Ian Hickson:
>> >>
>> >> >> <img src="..." title="image">
>> >> >
>> >> > If you have a caption from the user (as opposed to replacement text),
>> >> then
>> >> > this is a perfectly valid option. It's as valid as the <figure>
>> case, and
>> >> > means the same thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > [...]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > the above statement is bad advice:
>> >
>> > browsers map title to the accessible name in accessibility APIs when
>> alt is
>> > absent, so
>> >
>> > in the following cases:
>> >
>> > <img src="..." title="poot">
>> >
>> > <img src="..." alt="poot">
>> >
>> > the accessible name is 'poot'.
>> >
>> > it is only when there is an accessible name already provided that title
>> is
>> > used as an accessible description:
>> >
>> > <img src="..." alt="poot" title="description of poot">
>> >
>> > Also note that as per the W3C HTML spec, use of the title without an
>> alt is
>> > non conforming[1] as it does not represent a caption for an image and as
>> > you point out is hidden from a variety of users due to a long and
>> > consistent history of poor implementation.
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Does the spec still require that if an implementation encounters an
>> image with a title but without an alt to present that to users with
>> and without AT in a useful way?
>>
>> I.e. is the difference between the W3C and WHATWG versions here just a
>> difference in authoring requirements? Or also a difference in
>> implementations requirements?
>>
>> / Jonas
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 11:11:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:22 UTC