W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > May 2008

RE: [html4all] HTML5 Alternative Text, and Authoring Tools

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 13:08:51 +0100
To: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90EEC9D914694641A8358AA190DACB3D27086965D8@EA-EXMSG-C334.europe.corp.microsoft.com>

I agree that allowing the src as an alternative to the markup content, rather than the other way around is a better solution for many reasons, including accessibility and internationalisation. However XHTML doesnt solve the key issue in what would:
<p src="anImage" /> mean to a screen reader?

If HTML5 was to ensure img (and related media elements) did not have an EMPTY content model, and used the XHTML interpretation, then yes this would be a win all round and we could indeed drop the alt element.

________________________________________
From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org [wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White [jason@jasonjgw.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:31 AM
To: wai-xtech@w3.org
Subject: Re: [html4all] HTML5 Alternative Text, and Authoring Tools

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:50:25AM +0200, Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> (The alt attribute is not perfect - being an attribute, it doesn't allow
> markup inside it - but it is not "bolted on".)

I agree that it's badly designed, and I would further argue that XHTML 2.0
solves this particular problem in a principled fashion with its SRC attribute
and its definition of IMG as a (legacy) container element. <img
src="image.png">Equivalent content goes here.</img>
<p src="image.png">Paragraph of text serving as alternative to image (or you
could think of the image as an alternative to the text).</p>
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 12:09:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:49 GMT