- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:55:52 -0500
- To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
HI Smylers, On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:30 AM, Smylers wrote: > > Jon Barnett writes: > >> On 8/16/07, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote: >> >>> I can't think of a good name for this attribute, but consider >>> something like @embedrel (required) for now (name suggestions >>> welcome). The value of this attribute would reflect the scenarios >>> identified in the recent changes to the draft. missing, icon, >>> decorative, seecontext, seefallback. The value 'missing' would be >>> the default value, unless '@a't had a string (or perhaps some other >>> contingencies for content backwards compatibility ) so not setting >>> either @alt or @embedrel would be considered 'missing'. >> >> I am by no means opposed to a new attribute for indicating that an >> image intentionally has no @alt text, i.e. a new attribute to do what >> omitting @alt does now. The suggestion was @noalt, Maciej has >> mentioned it in a recent message. If it can be proven that either >> (a) >> enough UAs treat missing @alt the same as alt="" or (b) enough >> authors >> omit alt when they really mean alt="", then I'd be in favor of that >> attribute. > > We'd also need to define what user-agents should do if: > > * an img has both noalt and alt="" > * an img has both noalt and a non-empty alt > > By using two separate attributes we introduce the scope for > self-contradictory documents. An advantage of using 'not having an > alt > attribute' to mean 'noalt' is that it's impossible to simultaneously > both omit the alt attribute and include it. The proposal is not for a noalt boolean attribute. Its for a keyword value attribute that deals with many of the issues raised. I actually did specify how UAs should interpret that in this message: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/0647.html> I think I may have gotten some of that wrong. There I said: quote @alt (required in some contexts) @embedrel (required) with keywords: • missing (whether @alt is there or not its value has no meaning) • decorative (whether @alt is there or not its value has no meaning) • icon (whether @alt is there or not its value has no meaning) • seecontext (whether @alt is there or not its value has no meaning) * seefallback (@alt is required or for other elements the elements contents must contain non-<source> and non-<parameter> content providing a textual equivalent for the embedded resource. unquote But I think I may have gotten the icon scenario wrong there. It should probably be • icon (@alt is optional; if specified it provides the alternate text for this resource) There may be other tweaks that would help. I understand your concern about these being out of sync. However, looking down the list, I think its not that big of a concern. Most of that concern is tied up with simply a mis-specified value for @embedrel. And that's a concern for any attribute. I think the other benefit to this approach is that even if @alt is specified and the @embedrel keyword is mis-specified, AT and other UAsj could provide users with the option to delve deeper to see if there's any @alts where there shouldn't be. Much of my motivation here is trying to cover the use-case where a user is trying to comprehend a page, but something seems to be missing. If an entire page appeared to have incorrect @embedrel values a user could even turn off UA processing of that attribute for the entire page or the entire site. The approach provides a lot of flexibility I think. Take care, Rob
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 08:56:31 UTC