Andrew Sidwell wrote: > John Foliot wrote: >> Really? As an avid follower of *all* of the postings to both the >> public-html and wai-xtech mailing lists (two official means to >> discuss >> this >> topic) I have not heard a peep from Ian. If these proposals have >> surfaced in your back-room IRC channel or on the what-wg mailing >> list than I'm sorry, I read neither as they are outside of the >> official W3C process. > > Please see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008May/0073.html for > ths post in question. > I stand corrected and apologize for not remembering this post. Ian's suggestion certainly seems reasonable, and far superior to an optional @alt. I note from his example that the text equivalent is the text inside of the <legend> element - is it reasonable to presume then that: <figure> <img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" alt="Photo" importantimage="importantimage"/> </figure> Would be non-conformant, as there is no longer any text directly associated with the image in question? I suppose that a fair bit of useful data is already being transmitted simply by the fact that the image is identified as a photo* and that it is important, and so I guess it /could/ be considered complete, although less than useful. Is introducing a new attribute [importantimage] better than sticking with existing attributes and simply introducing new, reserved values? From an implementation perspective, which is easier to add to future user-agents? (* Photo. What if, instead it is an illustration, or a chart, or some other form of iconic or visual marker? Would a collection of reserved values be appropriate here?) JFReceived on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 00:06:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:31 UTC