W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2006

[whatwg] <img> element comments

From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:04:26 +0600
Message-ID: <op.tih4dos11h6og4@pancake.feldgendler.ru>
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:42:34 +0600, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:

>> If <img> without alt is defined to mean that the image is semantically
>> valuable but without an alternative text, then the problem is that we
>> need to distinguish between empty and omitted alt in DOM somehow.

> That's easy enough; the real problem is that we end up saying that
> literally billions of <img> tags are semantically valuable when in all
> likelihood they're just decorative images.
> The number of <img> tags with a alt="" attribute is about half the number
> of <img> tags with a src="" attribute.

There are also many <img> tags with alt="" which are actually semantically  
valuable (2), where alt="" has been inserted automatically by the  
authoring tool or manually by the author just to make the document pass  
formal validation. I can't say whether (1) or (2) is more widespread.

Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 09:04:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:49 UTC