- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:31:51 +0100
Michel Fortin wrote: > Le 2007-08-12 ? 14:20, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis a ?crit : [snip] >> <div class="passage"> >> <p id="p4858" lang="en">Hello</p> >> <alt for="p4858 lang="fr"><p>Salut</p></alt> >> </div> > > That markup looks awfully complicated for the simple use case it's > trying to solve. > > Wouldn't this be better: > > <alt on="lang"> > <p lang="en">Hello</p> > <p lang="fr">Salut</p> > </alt> Perhaps. I was trying to use the semantic of ALT suggested on public-html ("alternative for" not "alternate by"). The advantage of associating with for/id rather than by nesting is that it allows alternatives to be located anywhere on the page (or even in another document, potentially). Possibly having both methods of association is good, as with LABEL. > I've included the "on" attribute assuming <alt> would be able to define > alternatives based on something other than the "lang" attribute, > although it's not really necessary considering only the current use case. I'm not sure how well the ON attribute would scale to more complex sets of alternatives. e.g. What if some of the alternatives were video? What if some of the video alternatives had sign language interpretation? How can an author know which dimension of variation is more important to the end-user? But then if all immediate child elements of ALT are alternatives, then ON is (perhaps) superfluous: <alt> <p lang="en">Hello</p> <p lang="fr">Salut</p> <video lang="en" src="hello.ogg"></video> </alt> -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 16:31:51 UTC