Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:21:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <kE0XGnA6nPy0Ewtz@the-net-effect.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Colin F Reynolds <email@example.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980123085626.13157Afirstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Questionable implementation of IMG ALT attribute as tooltips In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980123085626.13157Aemail@example.com>, Jukka Korpela <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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!"