- From: Alexey Feldgendler <alexey@feldgendler.ru>
- Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:11:02 +0600
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:43:02 +0600, Spartanicus <spartanicus.3 at ntlworld.ie> 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="". <img> is somewhat broken in any case. If I was making it up from scratch, I would treat missing alt same as alt="" and define it to mean "semantically valuable image for which the author did not provide an alternative text". For purely decorative images, if such thing is to exist at all, I would define a separate attribute like "decorative", so that semantic images surely don't end up as decorative by mistake. -- Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 09:11:02 UTC