- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:11:11 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10497 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 presentational. -- 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 19:11:13 UTC