- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:36:02 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10485 --- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-09-07 21:36:01 --- (In reply to comment #3) > CONCLUSIVE REMARKS: > ============== > (1) Regarding a no-alt <img> inside a <figure> with a <figcaption>: > Also, should the author set the @role of the <figure> to role="img", > then there would suddenly be another element with role="img" inside the <figure > role="img"> element. I was wrong, here: Adding role="img" to <figure> would automatically make its children presentational. (See: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/complete#childrenArePresentational ) > The only role that it would make sense for a no-alt <img> to default to when > used inside a <figure> with a <figcaption>, would be "presentation". > Ironically, this bug thus is related Laura's request that it should be valid > to drop the @alt as long as the <img> has role="presentation" - bug 9214. I take back the above as well: it makes sense to treat such an <img> as role="img". What doesn't make sense, however, is to treat such an <img> as an role="img" element, by default, whereas an <img> with a proper @alt is not, by default, an role="img" element. PS: Ian, we do not discuss role="image", but role="img": Something which semanticaly isn't an image, could still semantically be an "img" ... -- 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 21:36:03 UTC