- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:51:56 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21565 Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> --- I don't think the presence or absence of a longdesc should be used as a determinant of whether an image is presentational. Use case for longdesc on presentational images: Stock photography is often included in marketing content (such as home pages, press releases, etc). It is typically decorative, and should have alt="" in many cases. But adding an accurate longdesc allows the photo provider to make their content more discoverable - the legitimate sense of advertising. It also makes it possible to get a better sense of the design aesthetic without having seen the image, which is useful to a range of different people. I therefore think that having a longdesc on an image with alt="" should not be a validation error. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 12:52:01 UTC