- From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:50:53 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 9/1/07, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote: > > An aural UA might announce "[Embedded graphic titled Seargent Pepper > > and Robin-two] from pinktigger" > > Right. But here the point is that the original alt text just isn't any good > -- it's not an equivalent. The only thing that @title has to do with this is > that it is *one* way the markup could have been authored better, as you show. Well, both attributes exist for accessibility, but each carries different semantics. Beyond that, I didn't mean to imply a "relationship". > But instead of using @title, one could just as well improve the 'regular' > text alongthese lines: > > <figure> > <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/11994078@N04/1237874293/"><img > src="url"></a> > <legend> > <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/11994078@N04/">pinktigger</a>'s cats, > Sgt.Pepper & Robin2. > </legend> > </figure> > > To be clear: I'm not saying this is better than your suggested use of @title. > I just mean to make clear that @title *as such* is irrelevant here. Indeed. The current draft doesn't omit @alt in any examples except where it's marked up as <figure><img><legend></figure>. It's been suggested to only allow @alt to be omitted when <img> is a child of <figure>. I think that works just as well as my suggestion for requiring @title. It probably works better and in a more backward/forward compatible way. > > > So if the UA falls back to @title in the case of no @alt, > > That's a UA bug. @title should always be available. @alt only when that is > the author's wish, and not *instead* of @alt. Indeed. Both attributes can exist, and and a UA would be expected to present both. I never meant to imply any UA behavior other than the example I gave. -- Jon Barnett
Received on Saturday, 1 September 2007 18:50:57 UTC