- From: Spartanicus <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie>
- Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:43:02 +0000
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:38:37 +0600, Anne van Kesteren <fora at annevankesteren.nl> wrote: >> * Regarding the alt attribute, wouldn't it make sense to just allow it to >> be omitted? In terms of meaning it seems the same. I have always considered requiring the alt attribute resulting in the use of alt="" as an anomaly. >> On the other hand, it >> probably shows the difference between people who thought of the >> alternative representation and people that haven't. Many authoring tools generate alt="" by default, mine does. It is then up to the coder to do the right thing, but the tool will frequently not prompt him to do so. For that reason I don't think that the presence of alt="" can reasonably be considered as having been a conscious decision. I'm note sure if a UA treating the absence of an alt attribute differently from alt="" would benefit a user. "Alexey Feldgendler" <alexey at feldgendler.ru> wrote: >The problem with allowing omission of alt depends on the meaning of <img> without alt. If <img> without alt is defined to mean the same as <img> with alt="", then the problem is that all cases when people omit the alt attribute because they don't care will end up with mangled meaning. I don't see that as changing anything. Documents containing content images without alt content are broken regarding this aspect, and they will remain so if <img> without an alt attribute is considered equal to <img> elements with alt="". -- Spartanicus (email whitelist in use, non list-server mail will not be seen)
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 05:43:02 UTC