- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:20:04 -0700
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>, Monika Trebo <mtrebo@stanford.edu>, "Gregory J.Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Jun 26, 2007, at 1:12 AM, Robert Burns wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:02 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> <object data="foo.mpeg" alt="A kitten playing with yarn."></object> >> <object data="foo.mpeg">A kitten playing with yarn.</object> >> >> Doesn't look abbreviated to me. >> > > I might be wrong here, but I suspect you created your example so > that their would be no difference between the @alt content and the > fallback content. While that's a nice example, my point was that we > might want to think through whether that is always the case (in > which case @alt is not needed on the modern elements) or whether we > need to provide different mechanisms for these (possibly) different > semantics (@alt as an abbreviated alternate to non-text media and > fallback for non-text media). Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "abbreviated". I thought you meant a shorter way of expressing the same fallback content. But now I see you mean that you could both have an alt attribute for a short alternative and full fallback content for a longer alternative. I think that would just be confusing, personally. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 08:20:18 UTC