- From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:37:23 -0700
- To: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, "public-wcag-teamc@w3.org" <public-wcag-teamc@w3.org>
I think it was because it was recommended under WCAG 1.0, and we didn't want to make all that legacy content suddenly fail. Personally, I think it should be a failure. Alt="" empty string is good in many circumstances, but alt=" " does not make an image silent. -----Original Message----- From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andi Snow-Weaver Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 1:58 PM To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org Subject: LC-764 I've done some research on LC-764 [1]. Can't seem to find any rationale recorded for why we decided not to make alt=" " a failure. Does anyone remember? [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=764 Andi
Received on Monday, 21 August 2006 22:37:38 UTC