- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:24:38 +0600
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:55:43 +0600, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: >> This sounds reasonable. I guess I should change my statement: >> >> The alt attrubute should be made optional, and when it's omitted, the UA >> should try to obtain some useful information from the file name or by >> other means. > I'm not sure I agree. If you look at what you might use <img> for, > it's almost always presentational, and could therefore be done with CSS. > The more semantic the image, the more necessary alternate content > becomes, thus making the |alt| attribute necessary for a truly semantic > <img> element. If you find yourself using <img alt=""> a lot, it's > probably because you're not making proper use of CSS, or because you're > using <img> elements to achieve a presentational effect that is > currently not possible with just CSS 2.1 (yet may likely be possible in > CSS 3). I'm not speaking about <img> with specified but empty alt -- this one is certainly presentational, and it's OK to require explicit alt="" for this case. I'm speaking about <img> with totally omitted alt, which is currently invalid. I propose to allow it and have the user agent derive some information from the image URL. This will better reflect the real world situation: many authors actually omit alt (which results in an invalid page) when they actually should have written it. -- Opera M2 8.5 on Debian Linux 2.6.12-1-k7 * Origin: X-Man's Station [ICQ: 115226275] <alexey at feldgendler.ru>
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 03:24:38 UTC