- From: <mail@jorgenhorstink.nl>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:16:13 +0200 (CEST)
This is the most important reason why this is not a good idea. Your proposal will break almost the entire web. Current browser behavior is to ignore the </img> and interpret the textNode as a nextSibling of the IMG tag. So browsers which do not implement HTML5 will break, because they show the alt text after the image. > > Le 11 avr. 2007 ? 17:21, Maciej Stachowiak a ?crit : >> "The img element represents a piece of text with an alternate >> graphical representation." >> >> And also: >> >> "When the alt attribute's value is the empty string, the image >> supplements the surrounding content. In such cases, the image could >> be omitted without affecting the meaning of the document." > > It promotes the idea of a model ala object > > <img src="toto.jpg">La t?te ? toto</img> > > This would not work for backward compatibility. But basically > alt="" has a lot of limitations. No markup, no multiple choices and > in terms of usability difficult to edit. > > in a drag and drop scenario in your mail.app or other HTML authoring > tool, you could imagine: > > +------------------+ > | | > | | the image itself > | | > | | > | | > +------------------+ > | | <- here a dynamic text area popping up > +------------------+ to edit the content. > > When the image is put in the window, a text is requested by the UI (a > bit ala ajaxy flickr.) > Then the markup could be generated. > > Another way is to give the possibility to associate the image with > another of the content (definition) > > > -- > Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ > W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead > QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ > *** Be Strict To Be Cool *** > > > >
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 02:16:13 UTC