- From: Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 19:47:40 +0200
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
2012/8/31 Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>: > When and if <picture> becomes implemented in browsers then the text > alternative can be provided as text in the sub dom: > > <picture> > This is the text alternative > <img alt=""> > </picture> > > as I have previously mentioned I don't see what the problem is with doing > the above now and visibly hiding the text using CSS. Being able to mark parts of a text alternative as one natural language and another part as a different language is another example of why it would be interesting to be able to use more structure in the text alternative. But here are some problems that I see with the example that Steve sent about how to provide the text as part of the sub dom and hiding it using CSS. A user agent that supports HTML 2.0, but not CSS or ARIA would ignore any CSS to hide the text alternative and will present the text alternative even if it can load the image. A user agent that supports CSS but not the picture element would always hide the text alternative (well depending on which media that the CSS was specified for) even if the image cannot be loaded. Also because the image has an empty alt attribute it would be marked as presentational. Let’s say that ARIA isn’t supported, then you cannot define the relationship between the text alternative and the image (and if you could, this could lead us into the reference hidden content issue again). But on the other hand, if the alt attribute on the img element is used for the text alternative it would work in both of these cases. Even in a user agent that only supports HTML 2.0. But then you lose the ability to add structure to the text alternative.
Received on Saturday, 1 September 2012 17:48:08 UTC