- From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:47:10 -0500
- To: "Dmitry Turin" <html60@narod.ru>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <bde87dd20707110747ycaa86dcs60c4bf8ecd4baf8d@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/11/07, Dmitry Turin <html60@narod.ru> wrote: > > > Good day, Robert. > > RB> I'm wondering whether we need @alt in addition to @title? > +1 > > RB> 2) the rich fallback (sometimes through @longdesc) > > The following are better, than @longdesc: > > <link src="./a.jpg"><i>rich</i> <b>fallback<b></link> > <link src="./a.mpg"><i>rich</i> <b>fallback<b></link> > <link src="./a.wav"><i>rich</i> <b>fallback<b></link> > > Now <link> is not used inside <body>, > so there is no any conflict. Current browsers move <link> from inside <body> to the <head> as a void element, and leave the "contents" of <link> in place. For an all-purpose media element, I prefer <object> I suggest that <img alt> element be used for "a piece of text with an alternate graphical representation" I suggest that either <img alt=''> or <img> without @alt be used for an image that is purely decorative with no alternative content (but where CSS alone wouldn't suffice) I suggest that <object> be used for all other cases of images that cannot be completely replaced with alternate text without changing the meaning of the document (a photo in a photo gallery) and may or may not* need fallback content for accessibility, and for any other images that require rich fallback content. As for why <video> and <audio> exist, I'm sure someone will write up the wiki page detailing the advantages and disadvantages of <video> and <audio> over <object>. I don't think IE's poor handling of <object> fallback is enough reason to abandon <object> for a new element, especially when browsers, including IE, already support <object> -- Jon Barnett
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 14:47:17 UTC