Re: [html4all] ALT issue redux

John Foliot wrote:

> If the new spec removes the previous mandatory obligation for @alt in
> XHTML1, how then can it be backward compatible to XHTML1, as it removes a
> requirement previously obliged?

It is backwards compatible because valid XHTML1 will always also be 
valid HTML5. Also, browsers that currently support XHTML1 won't choke on 
missing @alt. Backwards compatibility (and the "two serialisations" 
thing) doesn't mean that HTML5 can simply be converted down to XHTML1 
(in which case making a mandatory attribute optional *would* be a breach).

I'm not defending the decision to make @alt optional, mind...just 
working out the logic that lets HTML WG do it while still following the 
backwards-compatibility principle.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:17:42 UTC