Re: handling fallback content for still images

Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> Then there is the question of how common markup fallback would be. If it 
> is very common it might be worth it to investigate something like 
> <picture> / <graphic>. If it is not very common we should simply 
> consider having authors use <object> which already solves this use case. 
> (If they need it to work in current versions of Internet Explorer they 
> can maybe use some type of scripted workaround or any of the 
> alternatives proposed elsewhere in this thread.)

The object issue was discussed somewhere else ("object element interoperability Re: handling fallback content for still images" ?) and the use of different API appeared.
I was convinced <object> was a good solution, but changed my mind after reading this thread. 

Another example of what could be useful with such things as <picture></picture>:
Let's take the case of a diagram displayed as a picture (eg: http://www.opera.com/graphics/company/investors/annualreport/financeChart_3Q05.png (How playful am I, sorry. :) ))

I'm wondering if blind people (and others) don't have the right to understand this kind of information with something like:
<picture>
    <table>
        [...whatever info this graph is showing us...]
    </table>
</picture>

Indeed, showing a picture AND a table is useless for people who can see the picture.
This is one of the use I see in a fallback that NEEDS HTML content. Any other solution?

And anyway, <img> will not disappear if <picture></picture> is implemented. It has to be implemented for UAs, isn't it?