W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1996

Re: Images as alternatives to text instead of the reverse

From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:34:05 -0400
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960821153405.0093bda8@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
To: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>, Ka-Ping Yee <kpyee@aw.sgi.com>
Cc: Stephanos Piperoglou <stephanos@hol.gr>, www-style@w3.org
At 10:52 AM 8/21/96 -0400, Douglas Rand wrote:
>Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>I'd like to say quite the opposite.  The usage of images is not a whim
>of the document designer.  It isn't really equivalent to put text in
>place of an image either.  

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Right now there is no way of specifying
that an image is purely presentational. I agree with the first poster that
this is a limitation of the current specification. That means that images
which are ESSENTIAL (i.e a picture of a painting in a discussion of
painting) are encoded using the same tags as "KUEL FONT IMAGES" and
navigational arrows. The former is content. The latter is presentation.

You might want to treat content-images and eye-candy images differently. For
instance you might want to only download one of them. Or you might build a
list of content-images on a site, as if it were a "list of figures".

 Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 1996 11:38:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:45 GMT