Re: Proposal: accessibility revision for the img element...

At 11:14 +0100 UTC, on 2007-07-06, Joshue O Connor wrote:

> Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>> I think "fallback content" will be misunderstood by many authors.  [...]
> I agree, and also think that the term 'fallback' content is
> inappropriate for other reasons. IMO it is not a suitable term at all.
> As I think Gregory pointed out, 'fallback' for whom?

>From a UA implementor's point of view it is a fallback mechanism. So I
completely understand why the term is in the current spec the way it is. But
yes, for authors it shouldn't be called "fallback". So optimally the spec
would say "x is for authors to provide a textual alternative (or
"equivalent") for when the non-text can for whatever reason not be presented.
UAs are to fallback to the textual alternative when the non-text cannot be
presented". Something along those lines.


>> The same problem exists with the title attribute. It might be a good
> idea if
>> the spec would define a maximum length (in characters, if possible)
> for both
>> attributes, so that authors can be sure that conforming UAs will present
>> these attributes' content in its entirety.
> It may be best to 'suggest' a limit and indicate it they need more that
> can use /<insert suitable attribute/element/method>/.

See <>

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <>

Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 19:13:11 UTC