W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2009

[Bug 7362] inclusion of the title as a case where the alt may be omitted is problematic

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:46:55 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MpI4N-0000E7-50@wiggum.w3.org>

steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|NEEDSINFO                   |

--- Comment #8 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>  2009-09-20 08:46:54 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> The spec says:
> "user agents are expected to render an element so that it conveys to the user
> the meaning that the element represents, as described by this specification"
> ...and:
> "The title attribute represents advisory information for the element".
> This is the same requirement that requires <p>s to be visible, or that requires
> <title> to be conveyed, or that requires alt="" to be visible, for that matter.
> Why would it be enough for <p>, <title>, and alt="", but not title=""?

what is in the spec in regards to <p> and <title> is irreleveant.

the commonly implemented behaviour in browsers for content contained in an alt
attribute is that it is dislayed to users when images are unavailable. This is
not so for the title attribute content. therefore it is not suitable as
currently implemented in browsers to be considered and alternative for alt text
as it is not displayed when images are unavailable.

therefore recommend removing this
"The title attribute is present and has a non-empty value." from

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 20 September 2009 08:47:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:01 UTC