Re: Questionable implementation of IMG ALT attribute as tooltips

James Green (jmkgre@essex.ac.uk)
Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:43:09 +0000 (GMT)


From: James Green <jmkgre@essex.ac.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <19980129143607O.kaj@cityonline.se>
Message-Id: <SIMEON.9801291309.L@sf118.essex.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:43:09 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Questionable implementation of IMG ALT attribute as tooltips


On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:36:07 +0100 Rasmus Kaj <kaj@cityonline.se> wrote:

> >>>>> "JG" == James Green <jmkgre@essex.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>  >> Oops. I meant: Why use the image at all?
> 
>  JG> Because until a browser fully supporting style sheets comes into the 
>  JG> majority of people's lives, backwards compatibility is a major issue!!
> 
> Yes, but there are two kinds of backwards kompatibility. Either you
> can try to make your pages _look_ identical in old browsers as in the
> new ones, or you can koncentrate on the content, and make sure the
> page is still readable and looks nice (but maybe not identical) in the
> old browsers, and looks really good in new browsers.
> 
> The first kind ('visual identity') means lots of tables and font-tags,
> the second means correct and clean html + style-sheets.
> 
> While 'visual identity' might still be what many sites prefer, it is
> only a matter of workarounds and ugly hacks and is of no theoretical
> interesst ... So I don't think it should be a major issue on this list. 

*Actually*, I am now designing and programming sites to the HTML 4.0 
transitional standard. I do not use font tags except for colour 
(occassional) but do use TABLEs, because it is such a high factor in 
current presentation standards.

I agree that we shouldn't be using graphics and such like to mimic 
advanced techologies on older browsers, but that is hardly the point of 
the original thread.

Regards,

James Green

Term e-mail: jmkgre@essex.ac.uk   |   Home e-mail: jg@cyberstorm.demon.co.uk
Homepage: http://www.cyberstorm.demon.co.uk