- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:21:39 -0500
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, 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 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). Perhaps I should provide an alternative example just to illustrate what I'm trying to say. <object data="foo.mpeg" alt="My kitten fluffy playing with yarn." title="fluffy playing with yarn" > Fluffy, still only a few inches tall, is playing with a red ball of yarn that has to 3 times her size. She has just fallen on her back and it looks like the ball of yarn is crushing her. But she's really just having fun. </object> Do the two character strings look different to you in this example? Take care, Rob
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 08:21:51 UTC