Re: Shadow DOM and Fallback contents for images

On 10/30/13 5:56 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Interesting.  Could you point me to the part of the spec. that mandates this behavior? 

   When an img element represents some text and the user agent does
   not expect this to change, the element is expected to be treated
   as a non-replaced phrasing element whose content is the text,
   optionally with an icon indicating that an image is missing, so
   that the user can request the image be displayed or investigate
   why it is not rendering. In non-graphical contexts, such an icon
   should be omitted.

What an <img> represents is at 
if you search for "What an img element represents depends on the src 
attribute and the alt attribute" (sadly no direct link there).  The 
relevant bit:

   If the src attribute is set and the alt attribute is set to a value
   that isn't empty
     The image is a key part of the content; the alt attribute gives a
     textual equivalent or replacement for the image.

     If the image is available and the user agent is configured to
     display that image, then the element represents the element's
     image data.

     Otherwise, the element represents the text given by the alt
     attribute. User agents may provide the user with a notification
     that an image is present but has been omitted from the rendering.

> As far as I checked, Firefox is the only browser that exhibits this behavior.  Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Safari all show a missing-image box.

Yes, this is a known bug in Chrome, IE, and Safari.  This bug makes 
image alt text inaccessible to users who are not using assistive 


P.S.  For those who care about the W3C HTML spec, not the WHATWG one, 
for equivalent text.

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:05:48 UTC