- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:16:54 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9214 --- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-03-24 02:16:53 --- (In reply to comment #7) > I don't understand why we would make: > > <img role="presentation" src="img"> > > ...valid (and implying alt=""), when we already have: > > <img alt="" src="img"> > > ...which is valid, means the same thing, and implies role="presentation". What > is the benefit? Assuming that we agree that both <img alt="" src="img"> and <img ALT="" alt="" src="img"> would be correct, then I agree that it should not be recommended to not supply alt="<emptystring>" in this case. I think Steve has been saying that it should never be an error to use role="*" - and in that context we dicussed use cases for when another role than the one the spec currently require for <hn> elements, was correct. (I had to agree with him that other roles than "heading" could bee needed). Thus to say that the presence of role="presentation" loosens the requirement to supply a correct alt attribute, is not how I see it. The consensus document that Laura cites seems to treat the issue differently: It creates a link between role="presentation" and a looser requirements w.r.t. to supplying a correct alt="". I guess I have to say that where I stand today, I disagree with the consensus document here. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 02:16:55 UTC