- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:10:04 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Hi again, forgot to mention that the requirements for conformance checkers implementation requirements do differ due to differing the author requirement. so in W3C HTML validator: this results in an error <img title="poot"> In validator.nu it doesn't -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 18 June 2013 12:02, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jonas > > >> I.e. is the difference between the W3C and WHATWG versions here just a >> difference in authoring requirements? Or also a difference in >> implementations requirements? > > > authoring requirements only > > -- > > Regards > > SteveF > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> > > > On 18 June 2013 11:57, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Steve Faulkner >> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Am 07.06.2013 um 23:13 schrieb Ian Hickson: >> >> >> >> >> <img src="..." title="image"> >> >> > >> >> > If you have a caption from the user (as opposed to replacement text), >> >> then >> >> > this is a perfectly valid option. It's as valid as the <figure> >> case, and >> >> > means the same thing. >> >> > >> >> > [...] >> >> >> >> >> > >> > the above statement is bad advice: >> > >> > browsers map title to the accessible name in accessibility APIs when >> alt is >> > absent, so >> > >> > in the following cases: >> > >> > <img src="..." title="poot"> >> > >> > <img src="..." alt="poot"> >> > >> > the accessible name is 'poot'. >> > >> > it is only when there is an accessible name already provided that title >> is >> > used as an accessible description: >> > >> > <img src="..." alt="poot" title="description of poot"> >> > >> > Also note that as per the W3C HTML spec, use of the title without an >> alt is >> > non conforming[1] as it does not represent a caption for an image and as >> > you point out is hidden from a variety of users due to a long and >> > consistent history of poor implementation. >> >> Steve, >> >> Does the spec still require that if an implementation encounters an >> image with a title but without an alt to present that to users with >> and without AT in a useful way? >> >> I.e. is the difference between the W3C and WHATWG versions here just a >> difference in authoring requirements? Or also a difference in >> implementations requirements? >> >> / Jonas >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 11:11:13 UTC