W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2000

Re: Ideas for the ACSS module of CSS3

From: Sean Palmer <wapdesign@wapdesign.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:00:56 +0100
Message-ID: <005001c03758$52d4c760$87eb93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
>  | fantasai wrote:
>  | > I think that alternative content to use when current content is
unrenderable
>  | > should be given in the document itself, not the stylesheet. The
stylesheet
>  | > should provide style, not content!
>  | True, but you can't do that in current versions of XHTML, and maybe not
in
>  | future either.
> Well, these implementations we're discussing aren't in any current
versions
> of CSS, either.
No, I mean that CSS can be used on any version of HTML. In other words,
future versions of CSS (CSS7!) will still be usable with XHTML 1.0.

>  | How do you suggest we specify altenative aural content in XHTML?
>
> Generally speaking, there is no need to put alternative content for pure
text, ne?
I'm refering to grouped hypertext and other optional data that aural browser
users don't want to hear again and again.
*This is a WAI-WCAG requirement*: as per: (for example)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-HTML-TECHS-20000920/#group-bypass
"13.6 Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until
user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group. [Priority 3] "
We could/should do that with CSS!

> As for images, they have alt, which replaces the image with text. Objects
can have
> textual content that won't be rendered by UAs supporting the embedded
media. And
> any future replaced elements should follow the same model of having a
fallback.

You're missing the point here entirely: I'm using this to replace navbars,
and other content in the DOM styled as optional. That's a valid WAI use that
isn't currently implementable in XHTML. It should be required that we have
it in CSS(3).

> So, as far as I can see, there is already alternative content available
> for that which is unrenderable by the aural browser. Am I missing
something?

If you are refering to the 'content' property, I am suggesting we have an
explicit 'alt' property as well.

>  | It's a style concern.
> How so? You're replacing content, not specifying how to style what's
there!

So explain the CSS content: property then! If that's a style, then so is
this...

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
President and Founder
WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 06:05:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:06 GMT