- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:29:21 +0300
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- Cc: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
On Jul 6, 2007, at 13:14, Joshue O Connor wrote: > 'Fallback' has a rather pointed connotation that it is somehow > secondary or not that important and for non-visual users it is > obviously 'primary' content. Political correctness aside, realistically, it *is* secondary as far as the *author* is concerned. Or more to the point, the still image, canvas or video is *primary* from the realistic *author* point of view. If this wasn't the case, the author would provide the text in the main body of the content--not as something that is only presented when something else isn't. > The term 'fallback' also gives the impression to the author that they > really don't have to bother with this as it's only 'fallback' content That's a fair point. > I would suggest 'equivalent' (maybe we need an <equal> element?). That will lead to endless discussions about whether content in different media can ever be truly "equivalent". -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 10:29:42 UTC