- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:43:49 +1000
- To: "Craig Francis" <craig@synergycms.com>
- Cc: "Maurice Carey" <maurice@thymeonline.com>, "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>
> Perhaps the spec can say the alt is optional, but accessibility > checkers (WCAG?) can run tests that will fail a document if an image > had no @alt or <caption> assigned to it... this will help authors > detect images they have forgotten to mark up. I like the spec how it is as regards img@alt: I prefer that alt is required, and yet UAs are instructed to cope if it is missing. The means validators (and other tools that authors may use to check and produce quality code) will report a missing alt attribute. This happens now in HTML4 and I'm perfectly happy with it. I like the extra clarity in HTML5 that instructs UAs: "If the alt attribute is omitted, user agents must treat the element as if it had an alt attribute set to the empty string." http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-img > <figure> > <img> > <caption> > </figure> OK, let's nip this in the bud. The spec does talk about a "caption" but it only allows the <legend> element, not <caption> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-figure I'd prefer <caption>, does it concern anyone else though?
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 13:43:54 UTC