W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2001

Re: "alt" attribute required by XHTML 1.0

From: Matt Brooks <matt@mbjlp.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:56:16 +0100
Message-ID: <003401c13634$0fb05c20$0101a8c0@Ullenwood>
To: "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, "www-html" <www-html@w3.org>
Cc: "Peter Foti \(PeterF\)" <PeterF@SystolicNetworks.com>
You are quite right, it does not. I had always thought it did do this. Maybe
it did in an earlier version, or maybe I had viewed alt=" " by mistake.

Unfortunately there are other issues about the XHTML 1.0 Transitional
document structure that do not work well with the type of page designs I
use.

I like the XHTML/XML idea of marking up data and then employing stylesheets
to render a document for viewing. The trouble is, this doesn't work well
across browsers, and is not very backwards compatible (for example, older
browsers don't understand stylesheets).

My primary goal is this:
Have pages that can be read on the server as XML but displayed to the client
as HTML.

The solutions I think I have:
Use a version of XHTML and comply to that absolutely within my documents
(idealy).

Develop my own DTD by removing the aspects of XHTML 1.0 that do not work
with my page designs.

Use HTML files that include content from XML 1.0 compliant files.

Use a version of XHTML (Probably 1.0 Transitional - basically well formed
HTML) but do not validate the XHTML file when parsing server side.

I do not currently know which solution to use. Please email me with your
comments and suggestions.

 - Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
To: "Matt Brooks" <matt@mbjlp.com>
Cc: "www-html" <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: "alt" attribute required by XHTML 1.0


> It was my understanding that whilst 'ALT=" "' can
> produce such artifacts, 'ALT=""' does not; is there
> a counter-example at which you can point me, please ?
>
> ** Phil.
> --------
> Matt Brooks wrote:
> >
> > No, because "" produces an empty (but displayed) tooltip in some
browsers.
> > This is unacceptable.
> > Thank you for your reply.
> >  - Matt
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
> > To: "Matt Brooks" <matt@mbjlp.com>
> > Cc: "www-html" <www-html@w3.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: "alt" attribute required by XHTML 1.0
> >
> > > Surely if ALT is not semantically required (e.g., for a spacer image),
> > > 'ALT=""' is a perfectly acceptable compromise, is it not?
> > >
> > > Philip Taylor, RHBNC
> > > --------
> > > Matt Brooks wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was surprised to see that the ALT attribrute is required by the
XHTML
> > 1.0 Transitional DTD. I was going to use XHTML 1.0 Transitional in a web
> > development project, but have now changed my mind because the ALT
attributes
> > are not needed on every image.
> > > >
> > > >  - Matt
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2001 13:55:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:49 GMT