- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:48:25 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 13:40 -0400 UTC, on 2007-06-24, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: [...] > bottom line: > 1) the "alt" attribute MUST be maintained as a required attribute to > purely graphical content I can't agree. Yes, the language must provide authors with means to build web sites that aren't dependant on non-text. But something like <img>fallback content</img> would allow for much richer textual alternatives than the ALT attribute can (and would probably remove the need for longdesc). I feel the same about headers and scope. What they provide is very useful, but if they can be replaced with something at least as good, but easier to author (ideally authored by the UA), that would be much better. Yes, it's clearly needed to advocate accessibility here. But let's not mistake the means for the goal. If we can come up with better means, we'll get closer to the goal. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 22:51:03 UTC