- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:30:42 +1000 (EST)
- To: "Charles (Chuck) Oppermann" <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
- cc: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Wed, 13 May 1998, Charles (Chuck) Oppermann wrote: > Okay, but what's the point? <smile> If you want to reserve more space for > the image, use HEIGHT and WIDTH. If you ask me, you're trying to take > advantage of a bug in Netscape, which puts borders around images which are a > link. Is there something in the HTML 4.0 specification that says user > agents should indicate when images are anchors? CMCCN:: it is only when the images are off that I really care - if people are loading the images I assume they don't really need a LONGDESC. The border around images in general is something I find helpful - rather than guess which are links and which are just images, I can easily see (if I was tabbing around I suppose I could find out too, but as a visual user it isn't my normal way of doing it). > Chuck: > Your comment confused me: > << I had written: > In Netscape, the object is displayed at the correct size to fit in the alt > text - this is much more friendly. > >> > Chuck: > Friendlier than what? What's the correct size of the object? To me, it's > the size of the object, which is really small. > > Under IE4.01 with "Show Images" off and "Always Expand ALT Text" on, the > entire ALT text of both images is shown. CMCCN:: Aaah. A polite way of saying 'read the instructions you idiot'. Sorry folks - thanks Chuck. Everything is clearer to me now. Charles McCathieNevile (feeling a bit sheepish) better not associate my employer with this one
Received on Thursday, 14 May 1998 01:50:36 UTC