W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2010

[Bug 10497] What happens to role of <img alt="non-empty"> inside a <figure role="img">?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:11:12 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ot3ZY-0002ag-0f@jessica.w3.org>

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no

--- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-09-07 19:11:11 ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> Status: Did Not Understand Request
> Change Description: no spec change
> Rationale: I don't understand. What problem is this solving? For non-visual
> users, <img> is text, not an image, especially in a situation where there _is_
> alternative text. Why would you want to taunt users by saying that it was an
> image? Sure, there are cases where that might be appropriate, but those are the
> cases where you can set role=img. Most of the time, in conforming documents,
> the alt="" is going to be text that can replace the image, so that there is an
> image is irrelevant.

My bug was filed with the understanding that the default role of <img> should
be role="img". 

Howeer, you have just resolved  bug 10485 to say that the default role of <img>
should be no role, and as long as that remains the case, then the only thing to
consider would be whether the role, whenever there is no @alt, should be

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 Tuesday, 7 September 2010 19:11:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:44 UTC