- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:39:42 +0100
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Hi Ben I was not talking about being displayed as a tooltip . I was referring to the display as a replacement for an image when images are disabled. There is no indication that the text is advisory information rather than a text alternative. So in this case alt is being displayed in the same way as title. Regards SteveF Sent from my iPhone On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:36, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Steve Faulkner > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The alt attribute does not represent advisory information. User agents must >>> not present the contents of the alt attribute in the same way as content >>> of the title attribute. > > [snip] > >> In situations where alt it not >> present on an img but title is, in webkit based browsers the title >> attribute content is displayed on mouse hover and is also displayed in >> place of the image when images are disabled or not available. This >> implementation appears to contradict the must requirement in the spec. > > Debatable. It's not showing @alt on hover, so their presentation is different. > > I think showing @alt on hover, as IE used to do, was the behavior this > text was intending to discourage. That this behavior was wrong was > after all a major tenet of: > > http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/alttext > > This was premised on @alt being (potentially long) equivalent text > rather than being a short name for the image though. Once both @alt > and @title can be used to provide what could loosely be called titling > information, the rationale for presenting the two differently begins > to weaken. > > -- > Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 14:46:52 UTC