- From: Olivier GENDRIN <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:10:22 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Christian Schmidt <w3.org@chsc.dk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:31:56 +0100, Olivier GENDRIN > <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >>> >>> Based primarily on #2 above and on Philip's research, I've made the spec >>> say to ignore <img src=""> if the base URI of the element is the same as >>> the document's address. >> >> What about <img src="" alt="relevant content"> ? Would that expose the >> alt instead of the img (as does firefox nowadays), or ignore the whole >> tag (and so loose the relevant informations) ? > > Per the specification the element represents the text given by the alt > attribute in the scenario that the image is not available and both the src > and alt attribute are set. That the image is not available follows from the > fact that the src attribute has a value that is an ignored self-reference > which follows from the value being the empty string and supposedly (full > document is not available here) the base URI being the same as the > document's address. Errr. Wow. If I understand you, you are saying that the alt should be preserved. But Ian talks about "ignore <img src="">", wich is not the same. -- Olivier G. http://www.lespacedunmatin.info/blog/
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 16:11:09 UTC