- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:34:29 +0200
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Laura Carlson, Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:14:12 -0500: > Hi Leif and all, > > You wrote: >> I think that authors should be permitted to >> provide the fallback via markup as long if they want >> and know how to do it. > > I am sure that authors would utilize general <picture> fallback for > all sorts of things unrelated to a text alternative, such as browser > support messages. > > The word "fallback" was removed from the HTML5 alt definition in April > 2011 per the HTMLWG decision on Issue 31. A textual equivalent is not > "fallback" (2nd class) content. It is true that the formulation you cite above was a bit unlucky. But I use both words, aware of both meanings. If an element has content that is displayed when the parent element fails, then that is fallback. If that fallback has been authored according to some rules for how to provide alternative text *and* the content is also used as alternative text by AT, then the fallback is also alternative text. What I meant to say above was that «authors should be allowed to provide alternative text via fallback». -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 16:35:04 UTC