- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:01:12 -0500
- To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Cc: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Gregory, > i vastly prefer "incomplete" over "AltNotAsserted" both for brevity's > sake and because an "incomplete" can be used to signify missing @alt > as well as missing @src, which is also "incomplete" It is simpler. I changed it back again...but I could live with AtNotAsserted too. > why use a predefined attribute value rather than a dedicated attribute? > > 1. it is simpler Agreed. > 2. it applies equally to the 2 components of an IMG that make an IMG > usable: @src and @alt Agreed. > 3. it is highly unlikely that the value "incomplete" will be used as > an @alt text value Maybe. The WAI CG document [1] said that "It is important that this marker is not included in the alternative text string itself." Is this a problem or not? Wouldn't it be similar to Ian's "curly brackets" proposal? > this reinforces the equal priority of @alt and @src to conforming > HTML Agreed. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 14:01:49 UTC