[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Images as alternatives to text instead of the reverse



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