- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:09:48 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 09:45 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-25, Thomas Broyer wrote: > 2007/6/25, Sander Tekelenburg: >> >> 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). > > Isn't that what <object> is for? <object>fallback content</object> Yes, but AFAIK <object> is completely broken in IE, so authors won't use it. And the spec's definition of <object> is rocket science to most authors. That aside, if we'd want to encourage authors to provide better textual alternatives to images, they're probably too used to <img> so we'd have to either deprecate <img> in favour of <object>, or introduce something new that has obvious advantages. A dedicated  element might perhaps be that. It would also be in line with <video> and <audio>. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 12:14:42 UTC