Re: IMG ALT attribute in HTML 4.0

VulcanBoy (vulcanboy@rocketmail.com)
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:38:11 -0700 (PDT)


Message-ID: <19970921183811.7279.rocketmail@web2.rocketmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: VulcanBoy <vulcanboy@rocketmail.com>
To: Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>, Koga Youichirou <y-koga@ccs.mt.nec.co.jp>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: IMG ALT attribute in HTML 4.0






---Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com> wrote:
>
> So use something like &lt;IMG SRC="border.gif" ALT="Decorative
Border"&gt;
> to let users know the image is decorative. Since the image is purely 
> decorative, in the future it can be defined using style sheets
> 
This is infinitely more annoying in the middle of some text than
something like Lynx's usual rendering of [INLINE], as it gives the
reader just as little information, without it being as obvious that
there isn't anything important there.
> 
> Somewhat, but when bandwidth isn't a problem, it isn't as stupid.
> Some formats such as GIF and PNG allow comments to be embedded
> near the beginning of the file.
>
If you've ever run across a site that has meaningful comments embedded
in image files, I'd like to see it. Also, when do you see bandwidth no
longer being a problem?
>
> The problem I see is that suddenly pages with no ALT= text for their 
> images will have bizarre messages like "(c) 1997 XYZ, Inc." or more 
> embarrassingly  "FooBar Imagizer. Unregistered version." extracted
> from the comments.
>
Exactly...that's about the extent of image comments.
>
> > What is `file name'?
> 
> The URL without the protocol, server, port, and path. So
> 
>   &lt;IMG SRC="http://www.mysite.net/images/border.gif">
> 
> Would show up as
> 
>   "border"
> 
Again, this is entirely as meaningless as [INLINE], while breaking up
text into completely garbled segments, as it's much less obvious that
it isn't part of the actual text.


_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com