- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:50:44 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12365 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | --- Comment #13 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-08-10 19:50:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > Rationale: There are a variety of ways to do this already: > > <a href="big.jpeg" rel="..."><img src="thumbnail.jpeg" alt="textual > replacement"></a> This has the disadvantage that the the image becomes presented as a link - e.g. in screenreaders - rather than as an image. > <img src="thumbnail.jpeg" data-fullsize="big.jpeg" alt="textual replacement"> This could probably work. > <figure> > <figcaption><a href="big.jpeg" rel="...">caption</a></figcaption> > <img src="thumbnail.jpeg" alt="textual replacement"> > </figure> I think this has the same 'becomes presented as a link' problem. > <object data="thumbnail.jpeg"><object data="big.jpeg">textual > replacement</object></object> This seems elegant - though the UA support might not be tip-top. > <details> > <summary><img src="thumbnail.jpeg" alt="brief textual replacement"></summary> > <img src="big.jpeg alt="detailed textual replacement"> > </details> This example assumes that the non-sighted needs a longer description of the big image copy than of the thumbnail copy - I don't think that makes sense. At the same time, it probably does not make sense to leave the @alt of the big.jpeg empty - as that would mean that there is a summary description for a presentational image, or what? May be it could make sense to simply ommit the @alt of the big.jpeg ? > (The rel="..." values would be new values.) > > If there's a problem to solve here, we should just pave a cowpath. If there's > no cowpath to pave, then it probably isn't a problem people are really having. > As far as I can tell, there's indeed not really a cowpath to pave. (Note that > just making an element available does not magically mean everyone will use it, > so if the problem is that people are not using a standard feature to do this, > merely providing one may not solve the problem.) When you say 'pave a cowpath' then I assume you mean an *existing* cowpath. The spec could still point out one or several useful ways to do it - as the usecase seems common enough! > If the problem is just that there's nowhere to put script-specific data, that's > what the new data-*="" attributes are for, so that problem is solved. I suggest that you add examples for how to do this - one or more scripted solutions and one or more no-script solutions. The non-scripted solution could use <figure> and-or <details>. -- 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 Wednesday, 10 August 2011 19:50:46 UTC