W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Fw: FAQ - where are the FAQs for this list? (agree)

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:23:48 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200202260723.g1Q7Nme04197@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's
> content. [Priority 1]

"alt tag" fails the "clearest" condition, in my view.  If one is
having a general discussion about providing alternative content,
"alternative text" or "substitute text" might be appropriate, but,
if one is talking about how the HTML is written, "alt attribute"
is the only sufficiently clear term.

Actually, I reckon that, in terms of clear descriptions to people
who are not writing directly in HTML, that tag is the word that
should be abandoned.  Its possible that one can find a better
word for element, but, in general, the hierarchical nature of
SGML and XML means that the concept it represents will always
be relatively technical.

Tags are just part of the mechanics of associating attributes
with an "element" in the text.  In fact, I believe I've seen it
argued that the element type name is really just another attribute
of the element, so one is left with areas of the text which have
particular attributes, but with additional constraints about the
nesting of those areas.

Some elements don't fit this model so well, because there is no
corresponding text.  META I consider to be a hack, which is really
just adding attributes to HTML.  LINK is probably the most difficult.
BR and HR are zero length selections in the text.  Anyone using scripts
really should be expected to understand the proper terminology for HTML,
so I exclude SCRIPT from any simplified model.
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 02:39:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT