- From: Greg Kilwein <gkilwein@fbsdata.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:53:32 -0600
Jim Ley wrote: >On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:19:17 -0500, Matthew Raymond ><mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: > > >>...should look like this... >> >><img src="image.png"> >> >> What are everyone's thoughts on this? >> >> > >It makes quality assurance harder, since visual indication of alt is >not obvious from testing, automated scripts are used which can easily >ensure that no alt attributes that are needed are missed. Making it >implied makes this harder. > >It also makes user agents that use the absense of an alt attribute a >trigger for fix up behaviour unable to tell when it should carry out >the fix up, either leading it to not bother attempting it or to >attempt it so aggressively that it has to spend loads of time on doing >it on each and every image. > > I've never written automated scripts that test HTML pages, nor have I written a UA, but in my experience, I've never seen a UA that rejected a page because an <img> tag was missing an alt attribute. So, in existing UAs, is it not already the case that alt is implied? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20050105/7e42698a/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 07:53:32 UTC