Re: handling fallback content for still images

Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> 
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:06:49 +0200, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>> And you think that there is a clear demand for still images on the 
>> web? So that still images don't need to be "first class citizens" with 
>> "well-thought out fallback story"? I see still images in a great 
>> number more of the pages I visit than I see video and audio. Again, 
>> I'm not saying that we shouldn't provide those facilities, but it is 
>> very very strange to here arguments for video and audio alongside 
>> arguments that still images don't deserve the same "first class 
>> citizen" status.
> 
> Images have such a status. Browsers natively support multiple open 
> formats for differnet type of images and there's an element in HTML 
> almost since it was invented that caters for embedding such formats. The 
> only flaw is that the fallback content for that element is not optimal, 
> but there is no clear indication that it needs to be more than text.

Hi all...

I've been reading this "conversation" and it seems everybody's got his point of view, and don't see the other's point.
To respond to this specific message, I'd say sometimes, you'd like to add some explanations to your image; let's say an URI to the original source you modified, or more.
This can't be achieved with an @alt without pain (means copying and pasting a meaningful URI in the @alt, isn't it?).
Even <cite> can't be used since <img /> cannot embed another element.
<img><cite></cite></img> would be possible, amongst other uses. (i don't really agree with "<cite><img /></cite>").

My two cents about this, but I do think that making tags consistent on the way they're working would be useful, at least for authors.
having <picture></picture> won't break anything though, since UA still have to implement <img> from what I can read in this WG docs.
Am I right?