- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:30:28 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 10:37 +1000 UTC, on 2007-08-02, Jason White wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:30:52PM +0200, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > >> Skipping for a moment whether UAs actually do anything with <a >> rel="alternate">, I wonder what it should *mean* in this case. The markup >> doesn't define what it is an alternate for. So I'd guess that it could only >> be interpreted as an alternate for the entire document. > > It could instead be defined as an alternative to the parent element. "Defined in the spec to have that meaning in that situation" is what you mean, right? [...] > However, there are two difficultes with the rel="alternate" anchor proposal: > > 1. UAs treat links as requiring explicit activation actions on the part of >the > user. As with @alt and <object> fallbacks, however, it should not be >necessary > for the user to take explicit action to download and render an alternative to > a media element that he or she cannot, or has chosen not to, render. Yeah. Agreed that that's a problem. > 2. Since a rel="alternate" link cannot specify to which element it is an > alternative, it cannot serve as an alternative to <embed>, since the latter >is > specified as having an empty content model. Thus, rel="alternate" doesn't > solve the problem that it was intended to address of providing an explicit > association between media elements and corresponding alternative content. To > overcome this, an additional attribute of type idref would have to be > introduced. Agreed. That's what led me to suggest a boolean "equiv" attribute, to be combined with @for pointing to an id (and I'm not claiming there are no downsides to that ;)). See <http://www.w3.org/mid/p06240643c2d6870fc339@%5B192.168.0.101%5D> > This is why I would prefer the introduction of a new element, <alt> to carry > alternative content, assuming that <audio> <video> and <embed> are going to > remain in the spec. How would <alt> indicate what it is an alternative for? -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 16:39:26 UTC