- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:13:07 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20048 --- Comment #2 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #1) > Is this dispute over the @title attribute or over the @longdesc attribute? > > IIUC the logic is that because of @alt="", the img element is not in the > accessibility tree and therefore @longdesc does not get exposed and is > therefore not a good way to mark this up. > > This means that if you took away @alt="", the example would make sense, > because most AT in this case fill the alt text from the @title value. > > Alternatively you can of course completely remove the example, as suggested > in the linked email. Hi Silvia, taking alt="" away, leaving only title is non conforming in HTML5 [1]. The only circumstance where alt can be absent and conforming is: <figure> <img> <figcaption>decorative image</figcaption> </figure> having said that extension specs can include willful violations of HTML5 , but they need to be clearly stated: "Give the Task Force the authority to create willful violations (overriding of existing specification text) of the HTML5 specification, as long as they are clearly documented as such and communicated." http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html and it may make sense to modify conformance requirements to take into account the presence of longdesc on an image, but as stated above such violations need to be clearly stated and normative text needs to be provided., which is not the currently the case. [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-img-element.html#guidance-for-conformance-checkers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 10:13:08 UTC