- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 03:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Philip Taylor wrote: > > The rel=license example in > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#link-type-license> > looks like: > > <body> > <h1>Kissat</h1> > <nav> <a href="../">Return to photo index</a> </nav> > <img src="/pix/39627052_fd8dcd98b5.jpg"> > <p>One of them has six toes!</p> > ... > </body> > > Looking down the list of <img> alternative text requirements in the > table of contents, the <img> seems to be "A key part of the content" > (<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-0.html#a-key-part-of-the-content>). > > It's presumably not "possible for detailed alternative text to be > provided", because it's a photo rather than some kind of describable > diagram. Maybe "the nature of the image might be such that providing > thorough alternative text is impractical" but I can't tell if this > applies since I don't know what the image is. The "Images whose > contents are not known" case looks like the best fit. That requires > one of three things: > > There's no title attribute, so it fails the first requirement. > > There's no figure element, so it fails the second requirement. > > Therefore it requires: "The img element is part of the only paragraph > directly in its section, and is the only img element without an alt > attribute in its section, and its section has an associated heading." > > Its section is the section created by the <body> element. I think the > paragraphs directly in the section are "<img ...>", "One of them has > six toes!", "...". (I thought "Return to photo index" was too, but > then I realised it's not "directly in" the section, assuming that > means it must consist of direct child nodes. Also I'm assuming the > paragraph formed explicitly by a <p> element is directly in the parent > element of the <p>, rather than being directly in the <p> itself). So > the img element isn't part of the only paragraph, and it fails the > third requirement too. > > Conclusions probably include a subset of the following: > > * The license example is invalid. > * The validity rules for <img> are far too complex since even the > editor got them wrong. > * The validity rules for <img> are far too complex since it takes > this much effort to work out that the editor got them wrong. > [...] All three of those conclusions are correct. What should we change the alt="" rules to for this case? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 20:11:05 UTC