W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:06:23 +0200
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, 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>
Message-ID: <A646B33F3DC64E868C3A8F7953D16908@anselm-hannemann.com>
Am Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 um 19:55 schrieb Laura Carlson:
> Hi Lief,
> > Needless complexity: The complexity is related to lack of support for
> > <picture>
> > 
> That's right. That is why Mat will be changing the draft spec to use
> <img> with alt for the short text alternative not <picture> and a new
> text alternative method.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0016.html
What? Why do we rely on the img-fallback(!) now?
I always thought the img-element is not required but optional (for fallback methods). If we now rely on img for alt-attribute this would require to alway have an img-tag inside of the picture-tag. This is what I call complexity.
It might be handier to not have to specify 2 alt-attribute-values but longterm it is bad spec. The only two valid strategies would be the long version inside the picture-element or the alt-attribute for the picture-element.

Sorry, I speak for my own but this is a longterm consideration.

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:06:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:06:52 GMT