Re: Discussion Action 54: First draft of the rewrite of "The img element"

Hi Jon,

Thank you for letting us know your thoughts on the first draft of
action 54 and for being specific in your comments.

We will certainly take your input into consideration and appreciate
you taking the time to write.

Best Regards,

On Tue, May 20, 2008, Jon Barnett <> wrote:

> There are a couple use cases that have been discussed in depth on this
> lists but are omitted in this proposal:
> a) An image that is vital to content but its logical alternate text
> would be redundant:
> <figure>
> <img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" ??? >
> <legend>My dog, Bubbles, digging in the
> sand on the beach.</legend>
> </figure>
> Surely alt="" would be incorrect - that would imply that the image is
> meaningless, just like an image that is "Purely Decorative"
> b) An image that is vital to content (such as a gallery image) for
> which the user simply did not provide text out of laziness:
> <img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" ??? >
> If the user's tool generates alt="", that would imply that the image
> is meaningless.  If the user's tool omits alt, the page's HTML is
> invalid the semantics are left undefined.  The current HTML5 draft
> defines semantics for this case and UAs can use.
> The current HTML5 draft handle both of those use cases in a better
> manner by just omitting the alt attribute and still covers all the
> other use cases in this proposal.
> --
> Jon Barnett

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 12:23:58 UTC