W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: alt - data and reason Re: One more thought...

From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 13:42:35 +0100
Message-ID: <48356A3B.70007@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, hsivonen@iki.fi, mattmay@gmail.com

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>> AUWG and UAWG folks are the experts in this area who could provide
>> real insight to the HTMLWG. Through PF, we have asked for their
>> advice: "what should an authoring or publishing tool insert, in a case
>> where no alt has been provided by the author, but the image is known
>> to be 'critical content'?" [2]
> That question has a clear answer: It should not include an alt attribute.

There is nothing "clear" about that answer at all : it is
simply one person's opinion.  Others might feel (for example)
that the tool should insert "ALT='_not-provided'".

Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:43:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:31 UTC