- From: J. David Bryan <jdbryan@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 19:46:39 -0400
- To: HTML Tidy List <html-tidy@w3.org>
On 29 Apr 2000, at 15:49, WCD wrote: > It seems pedestrian in the extreme that such invisible graphic images > should be required to have an alt="something" attribute. I'm not sure I understand. _Does_ Tidy require this? Running Tidy against this line: <img src="fred.gif"> in an HTML file results in the same line in the tidied output. Or by "require," are you objecting to the warning that Tidy generates? On 29 Apr 2000, at 22:20, html-tidy@war-of-the-worlds.o wrote: > Tidy could possibly use a heuristic that keeps track of img srcs and > dimensions and note images where the same image is given, say, 3 or more > different sizes, and presuming they are resized transparent GIF > references and provide them with alt="" attributes automatically. [...] > Anyone like this idea? Hmmm...if the first poster is objecting to the warnings, then an option to suppress the warnings would be more appropriate (and a lot easier :-), I would think. While I completely understand the need for ALT attributes on images, I never quite understood the rationale for having the "alt-text" option in Tidy. To be useful, surely the alternate text has to be relevant to the image, which the "alt-text" option does not provide. Far more understandable to me is the warning that Tidy generates to alert the author that such attributes are missing. However, if the author does not want to view the warnings, then simply suppressing them seems a far better approach than adding meaningless ALT attribute values. (The October 1999 release notes say, "A number of people have asked for a config option to set the alt attribute for images when missing." I'm not advocating the removal of this option, even if I don't appreciate it's value. :-) I am advocating a different method of suppressing accessibility warnings other than adding meaningless text.) -- Dave
Received on Monday, 1 May 2000 19:47:26 UTC