- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:54:48 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10497 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |ian@hixie.ch Resolution| |NEEDSINFO --- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-09-07 17:54:48 --- EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html 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. -- 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 Tuesday, 7 September 2010 17:54:54 UTC