- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 08:52:05 -0500
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: janina@rednote.net, rubys@intertwingly.net, mjs@apple.com, Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com, public-html@w3.org
Hi T.V and Jonas, On 5/10/10, T.V Raman <raman@google.com> wrote: > Jonas, for what it's worth, I'd be supportive of keeping things > simple as defined in HTML4. I went back to the HTML4 spec [1]. It says: "The IMG element embeds an image in the current document at the location of the element's definition. The IMG element has no content; it is usually replaced inline by the image designated by the src attribute, the exception being for left or right-aligned images that are "floated" out of line... The alt attribute specifies alternate text that is rendered when the image cannot be displayed (see below for information on how to specify alternate text ). User agents must render alternate text when they cannot support images, they cannot support a certain image type or when they are configured not to display images ... Implementors should consult the section on accessibility [link to B.9] for information about how to handle cases of omitted alternate text. " I put together another proposal with this HTML4 language, the HTML5 language, as well as our img element definition discussion [2] in mind. This version is at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510 Are we getting closer to something that everyone can live with? Thanks. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.2 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0045.html -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:52:39 UTC