- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 13:42:35 +0100
- 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'". Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:43:29 UTC