- From: Shannon <shannon@arc.net.au>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:35:56 +1000
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > > But whether we need a mechanism for denoting differing img elements > combine to form a single image is a very different question from > whether alt should be optional or required. You seem to be conflating > them. > > How can <img alt> or <img alt=""> not be related to making alt optional? Both represent a total lack of information with no explicit relationship to any other element. There is no way a parser can resolve whether this information is supplied previously or not. If the parser can't tell then it can't validate the alt requirement - thereby mandating that alt (that is the text, not the empty attribute) be optional for a conforming document (as far as a validator knows anyway). Once alt text becomes optional then it is likely that many designers/templates/wysiwyg applications will simply insert alt="" into every image to pass validation without consideration for blind users. It is this situation I am trying to avoid. A valid document should provide valid alt information, not empty ones. An altgroup supports this - empty alt tags do not. Shannon
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 01:35:56 UTC