Re: Questionable implementation of IMG ALT attribute as tooltips

Colin F Reynolds (colin@bespin.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:21:27 -0500 (EST)


Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:21:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <kE0XGnA6nPy0Ewtz@the-net-effect.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
From: Colin F Reynolds <colin@bespin.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980123085626.13157A-100000@beta.hut.fi>
Subject: Re: Questionable implementation of IMG ALT attribute as tooltips

In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980123085626.13157A-100000@beta.hut.fi>, Jukka
Korpela <jkorpela@cc.hut.fi> writes
>The obvious way of solving the identity crisis of ALT is to use
>it for replacements _only_ and start using TITLE for a tooltip-like text
>when appropriate. (Actually we might also need a way of giving
>_technical_ information such as "200K GIF" separately but for the time
>being we have to append that to the TITLE information.)

That's the conclusion I came to, also; and Jakob Nielsen <http://www.use
it.com/alertbox/980111.html> concurs, it seems.

What puzzles me is the (apparent) lack of comment "from above", as it
were, on this point.

> But now the W3C activity page
><URL:http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Activity.html> seems to be just saying
>how good HTML 4.0 is, with some statements about "what we are doing"
>(with no links!), the texts of which presumable predate the approval
>of the HTML 4.0 specification.

Well.. that page has an updated date of "1998/01/19 12:08:04" (when I
last looked :). So perhaps someone is listening after all?

>What I'm asking is whether it makes sense to suggest or discuss
>the development of the HTML language, now that almost everyone seems
>to believe that XML+CSS is the solution.

They do? Gee... I _am_ out of step. Too much time in the Reel Wurld ;Q
-- 
Colin Reynolds
"I know you believe you understand what you thought I said, but
I'm not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant!"