- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:07:34 +0100
- To: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
Off cycling now, so my last contribution for a while : Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > 1. Because that does not mean anything in most langauges of the world. It means neither more, nor less, than "Mt Fuji, the peak bathed in early evening sunset orange, silhouetted against a background of pellucid white cumulus clouds", which most of us (and I suspect that includes yourself) would regard as a totally acceptable ALT text for an image depicting that scene ... > 2. Because you are unlikely to come up with a complete text string that > people always emit correctly, and get it implemented through the various > tool chains in use, with anything like the same efficiency as working out > what the lack of an alt attribute means. Why ? These are /automated/ tools, and it is therefore trivial to modify them to emit a pre-agreed string in circumstances such as these. > 3. Because it isn't actually a terribly helpful statement for a person to > hear multiple times. I agree. > 4. It means that all legacy testing systems will have to be rebuilt to > ensure that they recognise this magic string as being equivalent to not > having any alt attribute. It is /not/ equivalent : that is the whole point. ** Phil.
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 12:08:19 UTC