- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:59:28 -0700
- To: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On May 1, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Philip & Le Khanh wrote: > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-img> >> "The img element represents a piece of text with an alternate >> graphical representation. The text is given by the alt attribute, >> which must be present, and the URI to the graphical representation >> of that text is given in the src attribute, which must also be >> present. > > A more contorted definition would be hard to conceive. The graphical > representation is referred to in the prose as "alternate", yet > the ALT attribute specifies the text. If the semantics of IMG > were really to be as proposed, a more natural representation > would be : > > <IMG alt="http://www.whatwg.org/logo.png"> > The WHATWG logo > </IMG> I'm sure your issue will be noted, however, this is completely unrelated to the original point, which is that the spec is stricter for producers than consumers. My specific example demonstrates one instance of that, there are many others. A number of elements have specific parsing requirements but are not allowed in conforming content at all for instance, which is a stronger way of removing them than deprecating. Will you agree that the spec defines a narrower (and perhaps cleaner) language for documents than "everything on the web ever", even if you disagree with some of the details of what is allowed? Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 00:59:44 UTC