Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:29:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Green J M K <email@example.com> To: Colin F Reynolds <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <JbushBCWjQz0EwRO@the-net-effect.com> Message-Id: <Pine.ULT.3.91.980127142337.27246Cfirstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Questionable implementation of IMG ALT attribute as tooltips On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Colin F Reynolds wrote: [ ... ] > I agree 100%. > > So, AIUI, you are confirming that the position of the W3C is that the ~~~~ Sorry, Colin, you've got me there? > implementation of the IMG element's ALT attribute as a tooltip is BAD, > and that a viable alternative exists in the recommendation. No, it's saying that the TITLE attribute may be used as a tooltip. Be it good, or be it bad, it seems that if the v4 browsers can't find a TITLE attribute, they'll use the ALT tag instead. Apols if I mis-read the quote and got it wrong. > > Hopefully I can now go away and mark up my content in the manner you > describe above in the knowledge that, although in the short term non- > compliant browsers will produce a misleading rendering of my documents, > in the longer term the flawed implementations will be replaced by > compliant versions. They are not misleading unless you give irrelevant, wrong or useless information.