- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 02:40:20 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 00:22 -0500 UTC, on 2007-08-04, Robert Burns wrote: > On Aug 3, 2007, at 11:44 PM, Jason White wrote: [...] >> <p><img src="compleximage.jpg" alt="label" id="compleximage"> >> <alt for="compleximage"> <a href="description.html" title="Detailed >> description >> of image">Description</a></alt> I would say that that @title value should have been on the alt element, not on its content. Possibly this lays bare a potential problem? How could we protect authors from making this mistake? >> This has the further advantage that the UA behaviour associated >> with a link, unlike @longdesc, is well defined. > > It may be too well-defined. In other words it is defined as a > hyperlinking mechanism to a related resource (rather than a linking > mechanism to an equivalent / alternate / fallback resource. I'm not sure what is referred to here with "defined". Does it refer to a definition of <alt>, or to the markup in the example? [...] > <fallback id="compleximage"> > <alt> > <p> [multiple paragraphs of long description] > </alt> > <alt> > <object Š/> > </alt> > <alt title='something for a UA to display in the selection mechanism'' > > <object Š/> > </alt> > </fallback> A downdise might be that this would force authors to provide all equivalents together. Might be OK, but have we thoroughly enough considered whether it might not be perfectly valid in some situations to have equivalents 'splattered throughout' the document? -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2007 00:40:34 UTC